Superman Returns Is there a chance the Hommage will bite SR in the ass?

AgentPat said:
I think it will depend on who you ask. I just talked with my mom today. She grew up reading comic books, she loved the Reeve films, and she watches Smallville. She's been around the block quite a few times with all things Superman, so I would consider her a long time but casual fan. Anyhoo, she saw the trailer during SV last night and couldn't stop yappin' about Marlon Brando. She was surprised they used his voice, but loved it none-the-less. She likes him better than "the other guy." (Translation: Stamp's voice as Jor-El on SV.) She was only disappointed in the length of the teaser (she wanted to see more) and she didn't like "what they did to him [Superman]." (Translation: she thought Routh was Welling.)

Now, I realize the film isn't targeting 66 yo widowed retirees, but they're fans too. And their money is as green as everybody else's. I know on one level my mom will be highly entertained by SR, but I also happen to know there have been other revelations that have disappointed her. I just tell her to fill out her application and join the club. It's a big one. ;)

Thank you for the courtious feedback AgentPat. I didn't start this thread to convince people to feel the same way I do, I was merely interested if others felt the same way.
 
Oldguy said:
RM did retcon SC out of the bond films, and PB did retcon RM, SC, TD, and every other Bond before him. There were always comparisons between the Bonds, and there were always people who were happy or unhappy with the changes. There were people who were turned off, and others who were delighted.

There were even people who didn't go see RM bond movies because SC was their man. Bond is a poor parallel to Superman. Bond is in the real world, where stylistic expression of the MI settings is less open to inturpretation. A government office is a government office. The planet Krypton is alot more open to inturpretation. Donner's way isn't the only way it could be done, or should be done. S:TAS is a prime example of that.

I think if SR was an original vision, then there would be less comparisons to Reeve. My question was, will Routh be percieved as replacing Reeve, because now he's the Superman in the continuity established by Reeve? Will this generate animosity like a child has for a new stepdad?

Bosef, why don't you try to respond without yelling like an infant and insulting me with your not so subtle insinuations.

You don't think it will bite SR in the ass? Fine. See how easy that was?

Retcon



/ret'kon/ retroactive continuity.

The common situation in fiction where a new story "reveals"
things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the
"facts" the same (thus preserving continuity) while completely
changing their interpretation. For example, revealing that a
whole season of "Dallas" was a dream was a retcon.

This term was once thought to have originated on the Usenet
newsgroup news:rec.arts.comics but is now believed to have
been used earlier in comic fandom.

Okay, so, tell me how your use of "retcon" in this sense is proper? Changing the actor in a role does make us REINTERPRET what happened in the previous movies. And Bond stands, he does have stylistic approaches like Ken Adam's production sets and the Aston Martin and gadgets.

They are replacing Reeves in the ROLE of Superman, not Reeves himself in those previous movies. We won't watch STM and say, "Oh, that's Brandon Routh."

Retcon is a term that is used in terms of plot and story -- not casting.
 
God I wish Singer would show us some footage of Routh doing more than just being there.
 
bosef982 said:
Reeve's was an actor who played Superman.

He died.

Move on.

Brando was an actor who played Superman's father.

He died.

Mov... oh wait, never mind...

:o
 
bosef982 said:
Okay, so, tell me how your use of "retcon" in this sense is proper? Changing the actor in a role does make us REINTERPRET what happened in the previous movies. And Bond stands, he does have stylistic approaches like Ken Adam's production sets and the Aston Martin and gadgets.

They are replacing Reeves in the ROLE of Superman, not Reeves himself in those previous movies. We won't watch STM and say, "Oh, that's Brandon Routh."

Retcon is a term that is used in terms of plot and story -- not casting.

It's not replacing the actor that makes us reinterpret what happened in previous movies, it's when one relies on "vague history".

Now that Routh is the son that Brando sent to Earth, from the crystalline Krypton, then SIII and IV never happened. The amount of "vague history" Singer decides to go with, now defines what happened in StM and SII. So there's your REINTERPRETATION of what happened in the previous movies right there.

Thank you for providing me with the background info necessary to define retcon, and how it specifically relates to Singer retconning Reeve out.
 
Oldguy said:
I think if SR was an original vision, then there would be less comparisons to Reeve. My question was, will Routh be percieved as replacing Reeve, because now he's the Superman in the continuity established by Reeve? Will this generate animosity like a child has for a new stepdad?
It's a double edged sword. Batman Begins being a reboot didn't stop people from comparing it to Burton's Batman. No matter which direction ANY director went with, there would have been comparisons. And if Singer decided to completely ignore Donner's movie, then you would have the people who would complain about not showing respect to Donner at all. It's a lose/lose situation.
 
Well fans of Batman KNEW that Begins was going to be a restart of the franchise and seperate from the other films. For Superman fans I don't think they really know for sure what is going on.
 
skruloos said:
It's a double edged sword. Batman Begins being a reboot didn't stop people from comparing it to Burton's Batman. No matter which direction ANY director went with, there would have been comparisons. And if Singer decided to completely ignore Donner's movie, then you would have the people who would complain about not showing respect to Donner at all. It's a lose/lose situation.

Not at all. Nolan made out just fine with his interpretation, the fans and critics loved it. Sure if Singer went with an original vision, there would have been comparisons, but you are too quick to assume it would have been a critical error. Most of Donner's StM fans are old. I doubt the average tweenager would really care that much if it wasn't Donner redux.
It's funny how such an original interpretation of the :supes: suit is ok, but story wise, it would be a critical flaw to deviate from Donner's vision. Once again I fail to see the rationale behind your reasoning.
 
RedIsNotBlue said:
Well fans of Batman KNEW that Begins was going to be a restart of the franchise and seperate from the other films. For Superman fans I don't think they really know for sure what is going on.
And that's all well and good as far as fans go. But I thought this was about the general public and their reaction to Routh "replacing" Reeve.
 
skruloos said:
And that's all well and good as far as fans go. But I thought this was about the general public and their reaction to Routh "replacing" Reeve.

And I was replying to you talking about Nolan's Batman being compared to Burton's. I am just saying it is a different situation with Singer.

But on the replacement subject I don't think the general public cares honestly. Superman has been off the movie screen for so long that it only matters to the Superman fans.
 
I think this movie is a huge missed oppurtunity.

It's clear to me now that they didn't make a complete movie revamp of Superman's origin story because of Smallville. If memory serves, this is Smallville's last season, with the last episode airing in May and Superman Returns coming out in June. Picture this: The last episode of Smallville paving the way beautifully into a Superman movie about Clark's first days as the Man of Steel. Picture a seamless transition from Smallville farmboy Tom Welling to Metropolis cub reporter Brandon Routh. How cool would that have been? Instead, they opted for an ambiguous tie-in to only two of the four previous movies.

Like I said, a missed oppurtunity.

(w00t! 200th Post)
 
Smallville is still around. They want hype, put Clark in A suit.
 
Winking Samurai said:
I think this movie is a huge missed oppurtunity.

It's clear to me now that they didn't make a complete movie revamp of Superman's origin story because of Smallville. If memory serves, this is Smallville's last season, with the last episode airing in May and Superman Returns coming out in June. Picture this: The last episode of Smallville paving the way beautifully into a Superman movie about Clark's first days as the Man of Steel. Picture a seamless transition from Smallville farmboy Tom Welling to Metropolis cub reporter Brandon Routh. How cool would that have been? Instead, they opted for an ambiguous tie-in to only two of the four previous movies.

Like I said, a missed oppurtunity.

(w00t! 200th Post)

This isn't Smallville's last season...the actors are all signed through season 7. It's a nice idea but factually incorrect.
 
Showtime029 said:
This isn't Smallville's last season...the actors are all signed until 2007. It's a nice idea but factually incorrect.
Really? Huh. Well, I still prefer my idea. I would've rather waited for the movie and had Clark's origin story pan out. It's still a "could've, should've" scenario.
 
well, you CAN just stick to Smallville, and ignore the movie.
 
Winking Samurai said:
Really? Huh. Well, I still prefer my idea. I would've rather waited for the movie and had Clark's origin story pan out. It's still a "could've, should've" scenario.

Here's the thing. In 2012, Time/Warner loses the rights to Superman. The Siegel family gets them back. So WB can't wait for SV to wrap up to make Superman movies, and they aren't going to cut short a hit T.V. show to squeeze in their movies. So they gotta crank out both franchises while they have the legal right to.
 
Oldguy said:
Actually I was right, we spell it with 2 m's in Canada.

But back to the topic at hand...
Yes and you also spell 'defense' as 'defence' and 'center' as 'centre'......

....and you put Cheez Whiz on your toast.:confused:








At least the Canadians I know do anyways....:o
 
The Nose Goblin said:
Yes and you also spell 'defense' as 'defence' and 'center' as 'centre'......

....and you put Cheez Whiz on your toast.:confused:








At least the Canadians I know do anyways....:o

Only if I'm out of celery.:D
 
Oldguy said:
Not at all. Nolan made out just fine with his interpretation, the fans and critics loved it. Sure if Singer went with an original vision, there would have been comparisons, but you are too quick to assume it would have been a critical error. Most of Donner's StM fans are old. I doubt the average tweenager would really care that much if it wasn't Donner redux.
It's funny how such an original interpretation of the :supes: suit is ok, but story wise, it would be a critical flaw to deviate from Donner's vision. Once again I fail to see the rationale behind your reasoning.
I didn't say it wasn't possible or that the reception would be bad. I never said that building on the foundation of Doner's was the only way to go.

You are saying that he would have avoided comparisons by doing a restart. I disagree. I think comparisons would have come either way and Singer would lost out no matter what happened. You can't please everyone.
 
Winking Samurai said:
I think this movie is a huge missed oppurtunity.

It's clear to me now that they didn't make a complete movie revamp of Superman's origin story because of Smallville. If memory serves, this is Smallville's last season, with the last episode airing in May and Superman Returns coming out in June. Picture this: The last episode of Smallville paving the way beautifully into a Superman movie about Clark's first days as the Man of Steel. Picture a seamless transition from Smallville farmboy Tom Welling to Metropolis cub reporter Brandon Routh. How cool would that have been? Instead, they opted for an ambiguous tie-in to only two of the four previous movies.

Like I said, a missed oppurtunity.

(w00t! 200th Post)

I don't think Smallville had anything to do with it. From the very start Singer decided to do his OWN interpretation of Superman, apart from the comics, Smallville, or earlier movies. Sure there are a few homages to the Donner films, but for the most part SR has a very different look and feel.

The other problem is that Smallville is very clearly set in the modern day. Singer is going for a more indefinite, timeless quality with SR. The two styles just wouldn't fit together. Plus you've got all that elaborate backstory to account for.

I certainly wouldn't object to a Smallville movie some day, but for right now, I'm glad Singer is doing it the way he is.
 
Oldguy said:
Is there a chance the Hommage will bite SR in the ass?
possibly. but then again maybe it wont.

a homage is always a double-edged sword. it can play as a strength but also as a weakness. its got nothing to do with how much or how little is used. it depends how the plot is executed and how pieces of the homage is incorporated into the story.
 
I'm not a fan of giving homage to others in general, it takes away from the experience. I think the film will still do well.
 
Oldguy said:
Not at all. Nolan made out just fine with his interpretation, the fans and critics loved it. Sure if Singer went with an original vision, there would have been comparisons, but you are too quick to assume it would have been a critical error. Most of Donner's StM fans are old. I doubt the average tweenager would really care that much if it wasn't Donner redux.
It's funny how such an original interpretation of the :supes: suit is ok, but story wise, it would be a critical flaw to deviate from Donner's vision. Once again I fail to see the rationale behind your reasoning.

What happened to your great sig. regarding that?
 
skruloos said:
I didn't say it wasn't possible or that the reception would be bad. I never said that building on the foundation of Doner's was the only way to go.

You are saying that he would have avoided comparisons by doing a restart. I disagree. I think comparisons would have come either way and Singer would lost out no matter what happened. You can't please everyone.

I think the inevitable comparison to Reeve would have been easier avoided with an original restart.

I think if SR was an original vision, then there would be less comparisons to Reeve.

What is wrong with you, skruloos? Is your reading comprehension impaired or are you deliberatly trying to put words in my mouth? I clearly never stated what you accuse me of, so which is it?
 
Granted Old Guy, if you use retcon that way, then yes, Singer is retconning. But that has nothing to do with Reeve's himself.

From what we've gathered, Singer is retconning that Krypton fragments survived -- which isn't so much a retcon since it doesn't alter our interpretation of the past movies that much. Remember, retconning must IMPACT EXISTING interpretations, not just illuminate them.

The best example being the bastardization of the Phoenix Saga by saying Jean was in an egg and that the Phoenix previously wasn't really Jean at all. That's reconning in definition.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"