Love letter

[Sluggo]

My biggest question about this movie is, will it be just another love letter from Singer to Donner or will Singer allow Routh to play Superman and Clark HIS way rather then pretending to be Reeves, forget the "son of Superman" thing all together etc...

 

[Angeloz]

Perhaps they'll have Clark and everyone work for an internet porno site just to be different.

Angeloz

 

[Sun_Down]

My biggest question about this movie is, will it be just another love letter from Singer to Donner or will Singer allow Routh to play Superman and Clark HIS way rather then pretending to be Reeves, forget the "son of Superman" thing all together etc...

Wow, you've regurgitated other people's words so well that you've forgotten to actually make any sense. Bravo.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Routh said in an interview that the next one will be completely Singer.

I know that strikes terror into some of your hearts!t:

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Double post

 

[mjbull23]

At this point, I think Singer has no choice, it has to be his intrepretation and solely his.

 

[superbaby]

At this point, I think Singer has no choice, it has to be his intrepretation and solely his.

but he has none!

maybe more superman's ass kicking... and giving him a daughter this time.

 

[Qwerty©]

Okay, I'm getting fed up with this absurd assumption that Singer is obsessed with the Donner movies and refuses to deviate from them.

Superman Returns was OBVIOUSLY a send off to the Donner films. This is extremely evident in many ways:

- The plot mirrors that of Superman: The Movie, not because Singer was ripping it off, as some posters incorrectly assume, but because it is to reflect a new start, a second origin, so to speak.

- Metropolis looks completely different.

- The suit looks completely different.

- Lex Luthor is bald most of the time, if the Donner films were truly his only frame of reference, he would constantly be wearing a wig.

- Superman has a freakin' son now! If that isn't deviating from the Donner films, then I don't know what is.

Superman Returns was all about moving away from the past and looking into a new direction. This is shown in the movie by how he lands to earth in a ship a second time, reintroduces himself by catching a plane, and dies and is ressurected. He also flies off into the sunset, which in movies is often used to show new adventure is ahead.

Basically, if you think Singer is afraid to move on from the Donner films, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Chaos Bringer]

- Lex Luthor is bald most of the time, if the Donner films were truly his only frame of reference, he would constantly be wearing a wig.

wasn't that Gene's idea?

 

[Angeloz]

At least he was conned into shaving the mustache. Which amused him when he found out.

Angeloz

 

[ThanosOfTitans]

Okay, I'm getting fed up with this absurd assumption that Singer is obsessed with the Donner movies and refuses to deviate from them.

Superman Returns was OBVIOUSLY a send off to the Donner films. This is extremely evident in many ways:

- The plot mirrors that of Superman: The Movie, not because Singer was ripping it off, as some posters incorrectly assume, but because it is to reflect a new start, a second origin, so to speak.

- Metropolis looks completely different.

- The suit looks completely different.

- Lex Luthor is bald most of the time, if the Donner films were truly his only frame of reference, he would constantly be wearing a wig.

- Superman has a freakin' son now! If that isn't deviating from the Donner films, then I don't know what is.

Superman Returns was all about moving away from the past and looking into a new direction. This is shown in the movie by how he lands to earth in a ship a second time, reintroduces himself by catching a plane, and dies and is ressurected. He also flies off into the sunset, which in movies is often used to show new adventure is ahead.

Basically, if you think Singer is afraid to move on from the Donner films, you don't know what you are talking about.

most of the things you pointed out are aesthetic qualities. "looks different"...well, the movies happened in two different times. technology and culture have changed quite a bit...so i think it's a given that things would look different.

and the son is merely one aspect of the film. it doesn't drastically change the fact that Superman Returns is dreadfully close to Donner's original work. in fact, some have argued that the kid was a poor attempt to throw a plot twist into the superman franchise, kind of like a gimmick. many pretty much already knew the kid was superman's before the movie released despite Singer's effort to keep it a "surprise." i'm sure most of us that saw the movie (who are on the boards)...weren't really surprise at all. it was pretty predictable to me.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

I trust Singer, I really do. Though "Returns" was classically made to fit Richard Donner's vision, Singer added hints of what he wants to do. "The Kid" "Richard" a morose Superman, et cetera.

I think I will miss some of the Donner touches, like the very respectable Superman, but Singer makes great films.

 

[The Kid]

I would love to see Singer do a batman film. He's more suited for that than superman, really. Nolan's the Superman kind of director.

Just watch returns again and imagine it's batman you're watching. Fits perfectly. Don't believe me? don't be dumb and think I'm referring to the island lifting as something batman would do. I'm talking about the darkness. Imagine lex's ho as Harley and Lex as Joker. Imagine all the brooding Routh does as batman's brooding. Imagine the beating as something batman would typically have to endure. Wow.

Now turn it around on Begins. Imagine ra's as the genius crimminal mastermind, Lex Luthor. Imagine Batman as superman, flying in to save the day. Imagine Rachael as Lois Lane.

Everything's backwards. WB should just switch the directors for batman and superman if they're smart.

 

[Qwerty©]

most of the things you pointed out are aesthetic qualities. "looks different"...well, the movies happened in two different times. technology and culture have changed quite a bit...so i think it's a given that things would look different.

The entire concept of what Metropolis should be was different. The main point is that Metropolis' appearance is what Singer wanted it to be, and not a Donner ripoff.

and the son is merely one aspect of the film.

Merely? It completely changes the dynamic of the character.

it doesn't drastically change the fact that Superman Returns is dreadfully close to Donner's original work.

Except it's not. It's a completely different film in terms of tone and message.

in fact, some have argued that the kid was a poor attempt to throw a plot twist into the superman franchise, kind of like a gimmick.

And those people would be wrong. Singer isn't into gimmicks being used as major plot points.

many pretty much already knew the kid was superman's before the movie released despite Singer's effort to keep it a "surprise." i'm sure most of us that saw the movie (who are on the boards)...weren't really surprise at all. it was pretty predictable to me.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Dr. Fate]

most of the things you pointed out are aesthetic qualities. "looks different"...well, the movies happened in two different times. technology and culture have changed quite a bit...so i think it's a given that things would look different.

and the son is merely one aspect of the film. it doesn't drastically change the fact that Superman Returns is dreadfully close to Donner's original work. in fact, some have argued that the kid was a poor attempt to throw a plot twist into the superman franchise, kind of like a gimmick. many pretty much already knew the kid was superman's before the movie released despite Singer's effort to keep it a "surprise." i'm sure most of us that saw the movie (who are on the boards)...weren't really surprise at all. it was pretty predictable to me.

Yup. Biggest difference: Donner's Superman was a respectable guy and Singer's Superman is not a respectable guy.

 

[COMPO]

maybe, they'll turn Clark more assertive so that he'll want to fight for Lois himself and not as Superman.

 

[Qwerty©]

Yup. Biggest difference: Donner's Superman was a respectable guy and Singer's Superman is not a respectable guy.

Well, I guess if you make an absolute statement like that, you MUST be right!

I mean, presenting your opinion civilly like "I connected with Donner's Superman more than Singer's Superman" is completely out of the question!

Everybody has to be right all the time, and that's what is driving these boards straight to hell.

 

[ThanosOfTitans]

The entire concept of what Metropolis should be was different. The main point is that Metropolis' appearance is what Singer wanted it to be, and not a Donner ripoff.

Merely? It completely changes the dynamic of the character. Except it's not. It's a completely different film in terms of tone and message. And those people would be wrong. Singer isn't into gimmicks being used as major plot points. What does that have to do with anything?

Well, I guess if you make an absolute statement like that, you MUST be right!



I mean, presenting your opinion civilly like "I connected with Donner's Superman more than Singer's Superman" is completely out of the question!



Everybody has to be right all the time, and that's what is driving these boards straight to hell.

it's funny how you seem to be the main advocate behind this "opinion is different from fact" movement, yet you seem to be stating opinion as fact. I said that people have argued that the kid was a poor attempt to throw a plot twist into the superman franchise, kind of like a gimmick. and your rebuttal is that these poeple are "wrong" because Singer isn't into gimmicks (because you know Singer so well). You're the main one complaining about people just always have to be right and know everything...and then you flat out say that people who basically don't see things the way you do are wrong. hyporcrite much? you just made posts about opinions and facts...and this whole thing about how people so insistant on being right.....well, what do you think you're doing? but i understand your need to stand by superman returns and constantly defend it by all means necessary...and condescendingly discredit other individual's opinions. i guess if the boards truly are going to hell (like you so melodramatically insist...you're apart of the problem)

 

[Qwerty©]

it's funny how you seem to be the main advocate behind this "opinion is different from fact" movement, yet you seem to be stating opinion as fact. I said that people have argued that the kid was a poor attempt to throw a plot twist into the superman franchise, kind of like a gimmick. and your rebuttal is that these poeple are "wrong" because Singer isn't into gimmicks (because you know Singer so well). You're the main one complaining about people just always have to be right and no everything...and then you flat out say that people who basically don't see things the way you do are wrong. hyporcrite much? you just made posts about opinions and facts...and this whole thing about how people so insistant on being right.....well, what do you think you're doing? but i understand your need to stand by superman returns and constantly defend it by all means necessary...and condescendingly discredit other individual's opinions. i guess if the boards truly are going to hell (like you so melodramatically insist...you're apart of the problem)

Except I wasn't calling an opinion wrong.

Singer handled the kid in a way that was unfavourable? Opinion.

Introducing a kid was a mistake? Opinion.

I wouldn't argue those.

But stating that Singer casually threw the kid in just to create one difference between SR and STM, as was said in the example you presented, that's not an opinion, that's an accusation.

One that is incorrect. I know this because I have judged other examples of Singer's work and followed the production of SR, he is not the type to introduce gimmicky plot points. It's just not his style.

 

[ThanosOfTitans]

Except I wasn't calling an opinion wrong.

Singer handled the kid in a way that was unfavourable? Opinion.

Introducing a kid was a mistake? Opinion.

I wouldn't argue those.

But stating that Singer casually threw the kid in just to create one difference between SR and STM, as was said in the example you presented, that's not an opinion, that's an accusation.

One that is incorrect. I know this because I have judged other examples of Singer's work and followed the production of SR, he is not the type to introduce gimmicky plot points. It's just not his style.

honestly, you really just haven't said much of anything. and you making proclamations that you have judged other examples and followed production of SR doesn't make you anymore credible than anyone else over an internet forum. sorry to remove you from your pedastal. it doesn't make your opinion any greater than anyone elses. but of course...you just have to be right and insist that people who disagree with you are wrong. because somehow...you are the ultimate authority in an online forum because you'ved judged other examples. sorry, but full of it much? and i guess you were also the only one on these boards to follow the SR production? that makes you mega credible now!

 

[Showtime]

For the good or bad of it, Singer always had the idea of a "Returns Story" for his version of Superman. They added the kid as far back as the first real discussion of the story in the famous trip to Hawaii. Just after this before they pitched the idea is when they decided to have the kid be Superman's son. This was planned all along from the beginning.

 

[ThanosOfTitans]

For the good or bad of it, Singer always had the idea of a "Returns Story" for his version of Superman. They added the kid as far back as the first real discussion of the story in the famous trip to Hawaii. Just after this before they pitched the idea is when they decided to have the kid be Superman's son. This was planned all along from the beginning.

does that some how discredit it as being a plot twist? or being a gimmick? because it was planned from the beginning? i never said it was an afterthought rushed at the last minute....to me...it felt like a poor attempt to throw a plot twist into the franchise....no matter when the idea was introduced into the story.

 

[Super Kal]

My biggest question about this movie is, will it be just another love letter from Singer to Donner or will Singer allow Routh to play Superman and Clark HIS way rather then pretending to be Reeves, forget the "son of Superman" thing all together etc...

uh, he never pretended to be Reeve... Singer just saw distinct similarities in the two. and HOPEFULLY, Singer will stop the whole love letter crap and make a good movie this time...

 

[Qwerty©]

honestly, you really just haven't said much of anything. and you making proclamations that you have judged other examples and followed production of SR doesn't make you anymore credible than anyone else over an internet forum. sorry to remove you from your pedastal. it doesn't make your opinion any greater than anyone elses. but of course...you just have to be right and insist that people who disagree with you are wrong. because somehow...you are the ultimate authority in an online forum because you'ved judged other examples. sorry, but full of it much? and i guess you were also the only one on these boards to follow the SR production? that makes you mega credible now!

Ugh, please, don't waste my time. I have never said my opinion was right. I haven't put myself on a pedestal. I am just fed up of how people in these boards act like whiny children. It's ridiculous how people are against each other over things like shades of red on a costume and Superman lifting a giant rock.

I have always criticised people's tone and manner, and never their opinion. It is clear as day and i'm really fed up of pointing it out again and again.

 

[Super Kal]

what do you expect?... this is a comic book movie forum... almost everyone's gonna think they're opinion is the best one.