• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Superman Returns New Article from NY POST

VGPOP

Civilian
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
410
Reaction score
0
Points
11
front043006.gif


SUPERMAN'S MR. SOFTY



IN 'SUPERMAN RETURNS,' HOLLYWOOD'S NEWEST VERSION OF THE MAN OF STEEL FIGHTS CRIME - AND HIS FEELINGS


April 30, 2006 -- SURE, he's still faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. But have you noticed that Superman's has seemed different lately?

We think it started when Christopher Reeve's Man of Steel and Margot Kidder's Lois Lane spent time snuggling in satin sheets in 1980's "Superman II." And ever since - through "Lois &Clark" and "Smallville" - Superman's just been getting softer and softer.
But just wait until you see "Superman Returns," which arrives in theaters on June 30.
Nearly 70 years have passed since Superman first appeared on the cover of Action Comics in blue tights and a red cape. Since then, practically everything has changed - and not just sartorially.
The meaning of masculinity itself has been so redefined that the Man of Steel, and even his alter ego Clark Kent, seem positively unrecognizable to most contemporary guys.

Guys these days see themselves better reflected in the characters played by Owen Wilson - a slacker leading man whose most endearing quality is his passion for underachievement - than to earnestly patriotic, straight-arrow Clark Kent, or nearly invincible and never self-interested Superman. Enter Brandon Routh, a practically unknown 25-year-old actor, who'll redefine the superhero for a new century as the star of "Superman Returns," the fifth big-budget installment of the franchise.

Superman may be an icon of masculinity, but he's also a brand - a brand in need of a serious makeover.

This is a fact that has not been lost on Bryan Singer, director of "Superman Returns."
"It's time to address and celebrate, in some way, people's connection to Superman, and how the character has evolved from 1938 to now," says Singer, who acknowledges that it's tough to empathize with a guy who can lift trains over his head and deflect bullets like they were cotton puffs. "But a guy who's having a hard time fitting back in - then everyone can relate," Singer adds. "He's a breath of fresh air."

Singer understands that when you're a superhero, there isn't much in the way of physical obstacles - providing you can steer clear of arch villains bearing Kryptonite - so he created the biggest sort of obstacle any guy can face: an emotional one.
In "Superman Returns," the squeaky-clean hero heads back to Earth after a mysterious six-year absence, only to find things have turned ugly. Worse yet, even his long-simmering romance with Lois Lane (played by "Blue Crush" star Kate Bosworth) has lost all its heat. Lois not only has a new guy - she has a child.
"I wanted to have something serious to confront Superman when he came back," Singer says. "We've seen disasters, we've seen criminals. This is altogether different. This is personal."
For 40 years, Lois never knew that Clark wore a cape under his suit and tie, although she had her suspicions. By "Superman II," in 1978, Lois knew Clark's identity - and fell in love with him.
Afterward, in the television series "Lois and Clark" and "Smallville," the relationship between the two grew deeper (although in "Smallville," Clark actually has a crush on a woman named Lana, not Lois).
More than the '40s comic books or the George Reeves TV show, these are the images that have defined Superman for the past three decades. This gradual shift from a square-jawed stud into a sensitive superhero who actually cuddles with Lois is something the writers took into account.
"Our view is, if you're over 25 years old, then you've seen the [Christopher] Reeve films, and that's Superman to you," says Dan Harris, who co-wrote the script with Michael Dougherty. "If you're under 25, then you watch TV's 'Smallville,' and that's Superman to you."
In "Superman Returns," Lois has moved on. She realizes there's something to be said for loving a guy who's secretly not Superman. After all, if you're dating Superman, you have to compete with the whole world for his attention - and it's a needy world!
With an ordinary guy, at least there's a chance that he'll stop watching ESPN long enough for the two of you to nestle on the couch and get some quality time.
So this time around, Superman's not only got to reverse the darkness that has descended on the world - he has to seek some kind of emotional breakthrough, too. Can he find closure with the love of his life? Warner Brothers is betting nearly $200 million that this is the battle we really want to see.

Superman's interior life isn't the only thing that's changed. You can even see a transformation in his costume.
First, there's his new, tiny "S" on his chest. His logo used to scream superhero. Now it just seems like a modest boast.
His monogram isn't the only thing that's shrunk. What's up with those shorts? Those are the kind of things that Ricky Martin wears while working out on a European beach.
Though his trademark curl remains, Clark's classic pomaded 'do has also been toned down in favor of a matte brush cut.
Finally, what happened to the bold scarlet red that used to adorn his cape, insignia, shorts and boots? Now they're a sedate shade of rust.
As a nation, we're always willing to embrace the familiar one more time, even if merely for old time's sake. We did it for Coca-Cola Classic. We do it every couple years for the Rolling Stones, no matter how much they look like cadavers instead of rockers.
We can do it for Superman, too - but not the one your daddy worshipped.

He needs to be a superhero, sure, but also has to be recognizable to today's guys, dudes with iffy romantic prospects, tough career choices and a worldview that recognizes everything could unravel in a moment. They crave a new Xbox more than X-ray vision.
After all, in a world filled with jihad, culture clashes and environmental catastrophes, being an emotionally remote, straight-arrow Man of Steel would be just as much of a problem as it used to be a solution.
So, Superman, welcome back to Earth, 21st century-style. And before you put on that cape, can we just talk about your childhood for a while?

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/63049.htm
 
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH.

Thats a great title on the cover :up:

Pitty the article is crap.
 
Mentok said:
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH.

Thats a great title on the cover :up:

Pitty the article is crap.

Yeah, thats funny, but it's the NY post man, these guys are like half a notch above the National Enquirer as far as reporting and press reputation. For UK people, it's pretty much like The Sun.
 
Nivek said:
Yeah, thats funny, but it's the NY post man, these guys are like half a notch above the National Enquirer as far as reporting and press reputation. For UK people, it's pretty much like The Sun.

and even better, The New York Post is owned by News Corp, or in other words, Rupert Murdoch. Gotta love it when a newspaper owned by the owner of Fox gives the movie a bad preview.
 
Nivek said:
Yeah, thats funny, but it's the NY post man, these guys are like half a notch above the National Enquirer as far as reporting and press reputation. For UK people, it's pretty much like The Sun.

I agree
They write articles about how the paparazzi are going to end up causing a celeb death,but then they purchase,and print all of the pics the paparazzi take.
 
This writers usually slam anything that other people would deem good. Once again its just his own opinion,and he knows nothing about the character more than likely.
 
Are we reading the same article? Seems like they are justifying why Singer went the direction he did, to create an Emo Superman to relate to the average movie goer.

Was it the shorts comments? Just a taste of what average people think of them, not like they have Singer tainted glasses like all of you guys.

I think Peter Parker will make the most relatable Superman ever.
 
Oldguy said:
Are we reading the same article? Seems like they are justifying why Singer went the direction he did, to create an Emo Superman to relate to the average movie goer.

Was it the shorts comments? Just a taste of what average people think of them, not like they have Singer tainted glasses like all of you guys.

I think Peter Parker will make the most relatable Superman ever.

Probably so. I payed a lot for those glasses and I refuse to take them off.
 
I grew up in NY Oldman, so as soon as I read a NY Post headline, I diss it just from that. It's bird cage liner 80% of the time anyway.
 
Nivek said:
I grew up in NY Oldman, so as soon as I read a NY Post headline, I diss it just from that. It's bird cage liner 80% of the time anyway.

:up: exactly. Noone has respect for the paper anymore. the Post is rediculous
 
It's a piece from the NY Post, thats what. The article itself isn't all that bad (a bit slanted though), but the cover title is typical crap from a daily tabloid paper trying to grab cheap attention.
 
Nivek said:
It's a piece from the NY Post, thats what. The article itself isn't all that bad (a bit slanted though), but the cover title is typical crap from a daily tabloid paper trying to grab cheap attention.

I was thinking that it looked awfully close to a tabloid.
 
Well, Supes has always maintained a certain essence, while also adjusting for the times... What happened in Superman II was unthinkable years before. Superman being married with Lois was "insanity". The character can adapt, as long as he retains his pure heart and sense of Justice.
 
TheSuperBatFan said:
:up: exactly. Noone has respect for the paper anymore. the Post is rediculous

Be that as it may, the Post is supporting Singer's direction. You guys are blinded by your prejudice towards the Post to see that, which is amusing to say the least.
 
the Post is supporting Singer's direction.

Not really. The article is more of a backhanded slap at masculinity in the 21st century then it really is a discussion of the new Superman movie. And it's not all that well written, which I think people are picking up on.

But it's not at all overtly negative towards the movie, either. But it's the Post, so you had to know people were gonna wipe their ass with it :)
 
TheSuperBatFan said:
and even better, The New York Post is owned by News Corp, or in other words, Rupert Murdoch. Gotta love it when a newspaper owned by the owner of Fox gives the movie a bad preview.

The Sun newspaper in the UK is also owned by News Corp :eek: .
 
FreeRadical said:
The Sun newspaper in the UK is also owned by News Corp :eek: .
No one beats Rupert Murdoch when it comes to putting out crap.
 
Fatboy Roberts said:
Not really.

Ya really, put aside your preconcieved notions of NY POST and read. The Post writer recognizes that is WB's attempt to make Superman relateable, and he agrees that it's a viable attempt to do so.

Obviously it's a backhanded compliment. The writer isn't pleased to see Superman misrepresented either. But he acknoledges the merit of the direction they took.

Should be interesting to see how accurate his assessment is.
 
Knowing the NY Post Oldfudd, the writer wouldn't know Superman from Captain Marvel.

The article was written with an obvious slight smear to it. But as stated by myself and others familier with the tabloid, thats The Post for ya...
 
yeah i don't understand why you guys are saying its a bad article. Except some parts, the article was describing how the world has changed and the chracter of superman needed to change to be more relatable to the audience, and that's what singer is delivering. Where's the hate coming from? I've read much worse...
 
put aside your preconcieved notions of NY POST and read.

LOL. I did. Hence the part where I say It's not altogether negative about the movie itself.

Now--it'd be a little disingenuous of you NOT to admit you might yourself be reading more into the writers intention simply because you find the subtext to the article to be backing up the very same opinion you've been driving into the ground since you got here, right? ;)
 
Fatboy Roberts said:
LOL. I did. Hence the part where I say It's not altogether negative about the movie itself.

Now--it'd be a little disingenuous of you NOT to admit you might yourself be reading more into the writers intention simply because you find the subtext to the article to be backing up the very same opinion you've been driving into the ground since you got here, right? ;)


You mean his SuperBOY comments? Why would you say that?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"