Wesyeed said:
No, I'll probably never see this superboy adventure ever again.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the pretty picturesque cgi shots and the music is pretty good and you'd have to be blind not to see the point of the story, but...
what I judge this on mostly is my belief about art. I am an artist I guess, I've been one since I was 5 and when I started out I traced other artist's work to a get a feel for how it's done. Then after I understood how all these shapes were formed, I started figuring out how to draw them on my own and I worked to be able to do it just as well as those pictures I used to trace. So I don't have to trace anymore.
How do I say this better...
Remember when I told one of you my sister was a genius? She is. You should see her room, she's got so many novels and papers everywhere and she's at law school right now, going on to become a lawyer to "help people" she tells me...
Well I was bored as hell one day and decided to read one of her snooty pooty smarty pants books. It was called The Fountainhead, by some author called Ayn Rand, yeah weird name. Good read, very interesting story.
Now what I found to be really unsettling about Singer's approach to superman was how similar it was to the appraoch one of the characters in the fountainhead had to his work. the book's about architects struggling to make it in the business and there's this guy Enright who's the main antagonist and tries to defeat the main character, some guy named Howard Roark, for whatever reason. It's been a while and I forget easily.
Anyway, Roark is an excellent architect who's extremely dedicated to his work but he flunks architect school and isn't the top of the class like this other guy. This other guy, I forget his name, he's got no talent, skilled though he is. Singer reminds me of this guy. To get to the point the guy with no talent later steals work from Roark and is praised for being such a clever genius. I think he's later revealed to be a fraud but I just want to show you how I think about all this.
I've never seen any filmmaker so clearly copy another unless it was a remake, or direct to video sequel or one of those bad b-movies, but nothing on this scale like this, costing what this did. So even if this weren't a superman movie I don't think a person like me'd want to own it and watch it ever again. That's just me...
Before you start making analogies between Ayn Rand novels -- so you too can sound snooty and snobby -- I'd suggest you reexamine the facts.
First of all, Roark is more an destablishment-type, and yes, "the other guy" does steal his work and gets credit for it and eventually though acknowledges the intention behind Roark's individualism in his work and how he adheres to it despite the consequences.
However, this is just simply a pathetic application to Bryan Singer and if you can't remember what you read in a book, it's best to keep your silent about that and any analogies you may stretch to make.
First and foremost, The Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil both showed that Singer is capable of developing original movies that are compelling and showcase a wide range of emotion and drama from the actors he's directing. He demonstrated talent and originality, something which is really not at all applicable to "the other guy," PETER KEATING. Keating in the Fountainhead conformed to the predominant artheticterual styles. It wasn't that he had no talent per se, it's that he misdirected his talent continually towards projects that were similar to the contmporary styles -- something that Roark's individualist approach discouraged. Roark wanted more daring and risky adventures in architecture. Also, Roark allowed Keating to take his work and then Keating bastardized the original plans by adding in more traditional archtectural arangements.
It really wasn't a matter of talent, but of conformity.
Now, ignoring X1 and X2 which again showed Singer adapting original works and placing his own unique vision, we'll go ahead and bite that Superman Returns was this "abysmal plagarism" of Donner's work....give me a second, okay, I'll at least bite for now...
Your argument, especially in reference to The Fountainhead, falls when you consider that SR was designed as an homage to the Donner films and that Donner himself was consulted prior to the filming. Work cannot be stolen if it is granted, plain and simple.
Secondly, Superman: The Movie did not contain a love triangle, did not contain Luthor rebuilding an entire contienent using Superman's Fortress of Solitude, did not introduce Superman having a child, and did not have Superman leaving the Earth for five years...did it? I didn't think so. So, to decry Superman Returns as some patent copy of Donner's work is just plain bull****. There is no functional basis for such an extreme, black/white analysis of the film. It's simply false.
Now, what's funny about your Fountainhead argument is that Roark is fighting people who want things to be the same, to adhere to the tried and proven traditions of past architects. Keating conforms to this, conforms to the masses.
One could make the analogy that Singer is more like Roark, breaking the mold and fashion of what people feel is traditionally Superman and creating something new, more mature, and darker. In fact, as Ayn Raynd points out, the reaction of SR naysayers and fanboys on these boards is quite similar to the masses and self-appointed architect snobs in the Fountainhead who feel that they know better then Roark, that they determine what is right and wrong, and that Roark had bastardized the source material of architecture, much like fanboys feel Singer has bastaridzed Superman's source material.
But, if we stick to Ayn Raynd, we learn that the individaul who sticks by his own convictions is the true visionary, and that the main reason others attack him is out of thier own petty insecurities.
It is funny that you bring up the Fountainhead in that fanboys constant references to copying Paul Dini, Donner, Smallville, and other sources are constantly being heard.
Then again, I've seen comments by you and others that state that Singer bastardized and change irrevocably the character of Superman. Yet, you will simultanteously hold that Superman Returns was an utter rehash of Superman: The Movie. This, logically, cannot be true. Something cannot be a utter copy and yet be totally different than said copy. If this is the case, Donner's film's bastardized the characer, not Singer's. That's if we stick to your claim that Singer copied. So you have a choice...
1) Hate Singer for changing and altering Superman to suit his own aesthetic tastes.
2) Hate Richard Donner for bastardizing Superman, a character Bryan Singer simply followed.
Either way, you're argument is pretty bunk.