Superman Returns For those that disliked SR... Why blame Singer instead of writers?

[The Kid]

Did you read the script?

why do you ask?

 

[The Kid]

I am saying that WB should have made sure they had a company line on whether this was a sequel or not. Everybody said something different. Singer said 8 different things.

yeah and it confused the hell out of me. LOL. They should have done as you suggested and just made it clear from the start what this movie was since if I was confused, a fanboy, I can't imagine what the general public was.

 

[matthooper]

Singer is the puppetmaster. He had complete contol. The bad SR script is still his fault because that's the script he decided to shoot.

 

[Showtime]

why do you ask?

I ask because the script is a good read and contains elements that would have made the movie better in some peoples minds. The "Return to Krypton Scene" and more "Smallville Scenes" are among those omitted. Superman saving a people from a burning apartment and a helping a man stuck in a burning car was omitted from the Metropolis action sequence. Footage of Superman saving mountain climbers was either not filmed or cut form the film. In other words more action. Also a key component that was either cut from the movie or the script was Lex letting Superman know he was responsible for Superman's hiatus by planting false information about Krypton.

 

[Showtime]

yeah and it confused the hell out of me. LOL. They should have done as you suggested and just made it clear from the start what this movie was since if I was confused, a fanboy, I can't imagine what the general public was.

I imagine it was confusing to most of the general public. Is this Superman 3? Superman 2? An origin? A re-origin? What Superman movie are we watching?

I think the marketing of the film was part of the problem with the general audience. They had know idea what they were watching and why they were paying to see it.

 

[Showtime]

Because.

It's a question, did you read it?

The script has a much different flow than the movie and I thought it was nicely done. That's why.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Still, the script had the most stupid villain plot ever in a superhero movie...Even if they got Superman right, wich i think they did, they still got Luthor wrong and that is a minus in the movie`s grade.

How they came up with an amazing plane sequence and this stupid Luthor plot in the same script is beyond my understanding...

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Well i really had no problem with either because i liked the movie, the only things i was dissapointed that they cut were the return to krypton scene's and Lex being responsible for Superman leaving. But i honestly dont see were they could have fit them in as i would only cut little 30 second/1 minute scene's that would add up to no more than 5 mins. So i honestly dont see how Singer could have fit them in without making this a near 3 hour movie.

 

[NateGray]

Its Singer's fault because he had final control.
There are scenes that should have never been in the script much less the movie like the hospital scene at the end where the pull out a piece of Kryptonite out of him or the dog eat dog scene that made it into the movie and I could mention others that should have been in the movie that they even wasted millions of dollars to shoot but never used.
The way it plays out is also direction so in the end it is Singer's fault and his writers whom he has almost complete control over.

 

[Showtime]

Its Singer's fault because he had final control.
There are scenes that should have never been in the script much less the movie like the hospital scene at the end where the pull out a piece of Kryptonite out of him or the dog eat dog scene that made it into the movie and I could mention others that should have been in the movie that they even wasted millions of dollars to shoot but never used.
The way it plays out is also direction so in the end it is Singer's fault and his writers whom he has almost complete control over.

I don't understand why that was even added to the movie, it wasn't in the script.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^One of the few parts i wish they would've cut, made the previous scene a little less believable. However, the rest of the hospital scene was great.

 

[NateGray]

I don't understand why that was even added to the movie, it wasn't in the script.

Exactly and it would have freed up time to put in more important scenes that were cut like Lex telling Superman it was him that sent him on the trail looking for Krypton or more smallville scenes with Ma Kent etc etc....

 

[Showtime]

Exactly and it would have freed up time to put in more important scenes that were cut like Lex telling Superman it was him that sent him on the trail looking for Krypton or more smallville scenes with Ma Kent etc etc....

As you know I liked the film, but as you aluded to, cutting certain scenes as above only pave the way for better scenes. End result, a better more well rounded movie.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^How exactly would cutting a 30 second scene make room for other scene's that would last longer. I agree that scene should have been cut, but it couldnt be replaced by any of the deleted scene's without making the movie longer.

 

[Showtime]

^How exactly would cutting a 30 second scene make room for other scene's that would last longer. I agree that scene should have been cut, but it couldnt be replaced by any of the deleted scene's without making the movie longer.

It's a combination of things, if Singer wanted to stay with in the same time frame, he could have cut out the shard sequence and the Kitty and Superman sequence at the hospital. Then ad the Lex letting Superman know he is responsible for his unsuccessful journey. There is ways to do it.

 

[C. Lee]

anybody who says superman returns is a bad movie is stupid.

No...it means they have a different opinion than yours.

************************************
I want everyone to get over their superior attitude....I don't care if you liked or didn't like the movie....you can talk to and about the other side without the name calling. If you can't...then I will give you a vacation.
************************************

 

[X-Maniac]

As you know I liked the film, but as you aluded to, cutting certain scenes as above only pave the way for better scenes. End result, a better more well rounded movie.

I would have cut:

1) Kid screams when Lex throws wig (REASON - silly, done only for effect)

2) Clark throws ball too far for his dog (REASON - silly, makes Clark look cruel, done for effect). There was apparently a later scene in which the dog drops the ball in Clark's lap, but even so, the idea of Clark throwing that ball is wrong.

3) Dog eat dog (REASON - silly, done only for effect)

4) Kitty in car with no brakes, to distract Superman (REASON - silly, done only for effect)

5) All childhood flashback scenes, especially showing young Clark wearing glasses (REASON - him wearing glasses is silly, flashbacks are not needed, i doubt anyone on this forum can justify why young Clark is wearing the disguising glasses of older Clark)

6) Nurses remove kryptonite shard in hospital (REASON - makes mockery of effects of kryptonite, ruins previous island-lifting sequence)

INSERT:
1) Kryptonite exloration sequence (REASON - it's at the heart of the movie, it's why he leaves, it's why he feels alone, it's why he returns, it's why he loves Lois and feels attachment to earth, to her and the child...not to mention the cost justifies its inclusion)


ALL those things would make a better, tighter movie. They wouldn't fix all that was wrong with it, but they'd make it more watchable and give it greater weight. Too much power was given to Singer with story, budget and editing. What a disaster.

It's ridiculous to hold the Kryton sequence for the sequel as it's related to Superman's return, which is what this movie is all about.

Regrettably, Bryan Singer, and his writers, prove they know nothing about Superman. This movie is completely disconnected from the source material and so many things happen just for effect. Turning him into a Christ-like figure - even to the extent of stabbing him in the side (like the Roman spear at the Crucifixion) and the empty bed in the hospital room (like Christ's empty tomb) - is wrong and unnecessary as there are plenty of genuine Superman stories to be told without raiding the Bible for inspiration. Raid the comics, for crying out loud.

The BBC website in the UK talks about the Christian references here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5223302.stm

Those references might have been acceptable if better editing had produced a better movie. A better story would have been even more desirable. And now the DVD is going to leave out the one sequence that makes sense of the film. Tragic.

 

[dark_b]

I ask because the script is a good read and contains elements that would have made the movie better in some peoples minds. The "Return to Krypton Scene" and more "Smallville Scenes" are among those omitted. Superman saving a people from a burning apartment and a helping a man stuck in a burning car was omitted from the Metropolis action sequence. Footage of Superman saving mountain climbers was either not filmed or cut form the film. In other words more action. Also a key component that was either cut from the movie or the script was Lex letting Superman know he was responsible for Superman's hiatus by planting false information about Krypton.

this is a joke right? please showtime tell me tha tthis is a joke .

 

[C. Lee]

5) All childhood flashback scenes, especially showing young Clark wearing glasses (REASON - him wearing glasses is silly, flashbacks are not needed, i doubt anyone on this forum can justify why young Clark is wearing the disguising glasses of older Clark)

Actually there have been several reasonable possibilities put forth;
1) The Kents, knowing Clark is extrememly physically superior to earthmen, have him wear glasses from an early age to make people not think he is so gifted to help draw attention from him.

2) The Kents use something in the glasses (particles of lead for example)to lessen his supersight abilities to help him train himself to use them properly.

3) It was used to show an analogy of Clark discovering his super powers and not needing the glasses anymore to that of Jason discovering his powers and not needing the inhaler anymore.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Actually there have been several reasonable possibilities put forth;
1) The Kents, knowing Clark is extrememly physically superior to earthmen, have him wear glasses from an early age to make people not think he is so gifted to help draw attention from him.

2) The Kents use something in the glasses (particles of lead for example)to lessen his supersight abilities to help him train himself to use them properly.

3) It was used to show an analogy of Clark discovering his super powers and not needing the glasses anymore to that of Jason discovering his powers and not needing the inhaler anymore.

Nicely done.

 

[buggs0268]

I believe after Superboy was introduced in the comics, Clark wore glasses that Pa made out of pieces of glass from the windshield of the ship to prevent him from using his laser eyes to burn stuff when he could not control it as a baby, and then they just kept it as his disguise from Clark to Superboy. But, in the comics, after Superboy was created, he did have his flying and other powers as soon as he landed on the planet. He just couldn't control them and Pa had to teach him restraint at a very early age., which is the scene from STM. However, it was not because he had bad eyesight, and then he just got good eyesight one day. It was that he always had it. When he was small Pa had to wrap his presents with lead to keep him from using his x-ray vision to see what he got for christmass and his b-day from when he was very small and understood what Christmass was.

 

[Showtime]

this is a joke right? please showtime tell me tha tthis is a joke .

Well it seems that the apartment building fire was relegated to the footage shown on the Daily Planet telelvisions but the scenes are below in the script:

CAMERA DROPS TO THREE PEOPLE trying to pull a young man from a burning, overturned car. Suddenly, a blurry streak whips by and VWOOSH - the fire is extinguished -- leaving the car covered in a thin layer of frost.

ANOTHER FIRE engulfing an apartment building, where a DOZEN PEOPLE are trapped on the roof. VWOOOOOSH! Superman focuses his breath, concentrating on the blaze. His superbreath fills the building and after a moment -- the fire is gone.

Yes it's true DB, I kid you not.

 

[X-Maniac]

Actually there have been several reasonable possibilities put forth;
1) The Kents, knowing Clark is extrememly physically superior to earthmen, have him wear glasses from an early age to make people not think he is so gifted to help draw attention from him.

2) The Kents use something in the glasses (particles of lead for example)to lessen his supersight abilities to help him train himself to use them properly.

3) It was used to show an analogy of Clark discovering his super powers and not needing the glasses anymore to that of Jason discovering his powers and not needing the inhaler anymore.

Still, none of that was even remotely hinted at in the movie.

I think it more likely that they wanted to make it extremely obvious the kid was Clark.

 

[buggs0268]

Still, none of that was even remotely hinted at in the movie.

I think it more likely that they wanted to make it extremely obvious the kid was Clark.

Either that or, the fact that they made the kid really sick, with the breath thing and special diet, they were going out of their way to show the kids wasn't his.