Superman Returns New Article from NY POST

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Ya really, put aside your preconcieved notions....

That's rich coming from you.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

But if the Post was raving about how good Superman was going to be you guys would be saying that is the best newspaper ever, you know that is the damn truth.

 

[BareKnucklez]

LOL THAT artical made Routh's Superman look like a total wimp.

I really don't think I like the idea of a Superman soap...

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

But if the Post was raving about how good Superman was going to be you guys would be saying that is the best newspaper ever, you know that is the damn truth.

No I don't. And the guys who would be saying that--suck.

 

[Showtime]

I hate the New York Post because it is the New York Post. Damn Yankees.

 

[MatchesMalone]

The article is going off the quotes from Singer that have been bandied about since last year's Wondercon. The writer takes those quotes and made an interpretation. What's wrong with that?

Regarding his interpretation. It seems accurate. That does not mean it is emo, or what have you. It means that Superman may be treated with emotional maturity. It also means that Superman may be a love story, which is not a bad thing in my mind necessarily. Whether it translates to film well is the question, and I have my doubts. But the action looks good so far, so that might keep it interesting if the story devolves to Peter Parker standards.

And Oldguy, how can any of this be bad news to you? It's as Post-crisis as it gets, if true.

 

[Showtime]

Nothing is wrong with that in my opinion, but I don't think you were addressing me.

Not sure what to make out of the storyline, but I think the action will definately translate nicely on to film, despite no "supervillian".

 

[MatchesMalone]

Let's face it, Superman confronted emotional issues at the heart of STM and Superman 2 as well. Lois was at the center of both, and figured pretty heavily in the stories of the films. Those turned out alright (Donner's cut of S2, of course).

However, it's all in the execution. Those emotional plotlines worked in STM because there was no dwelling, no overexertion (ok, the Lois rap was bad). That kind of stuff (a la Spider-man 2) brings it to the realm of bad angst. If Superman goes in that direction, it will only be a detriment.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

I don't disagree with any of that--I just thought the article was poorly written. But it's the Post, so hey

"Here's a letter to the New York Post!" -- Chuck D.

 

[Showtime]

Let's face it, Superman confronted emotional issues at the heart of STM and Superman 2 as well. Lois was at the center of both, and figured pretty heavily in the stories of the films. Those turned out alright (Donner's cut of S2, of course).

However, it's all in the execution. Those emotional plotlines worked in STM because there was no dwelling, no overexertion (ok, the Lois rap was bad). That kind of stuff (a la Spider-man 2) brings it to the realm of bad angst. If Superman goes in that direction, it will only be a detriment.

I like the heart of the idea, Superman returning to a world that no longer needs him. I think Singer is really trying to give Superman a different type of challenge by having Lois move on. The only problem is still that damn kid, isn't it enough that Lois is engaged?

I would have rather seen Superman return to find out that Lex is a high ranking political official and he is running for President, or better yet, he is President. Not only that, the people adore him, and Lex has been brainwashing them the whole time against Superman. So when boy blue does return, the whole country and even the world is against him. What is he going to do now? Lois has moved on and he has returned to a country where Lex is the highest ranking political official in the country and basically the most powerful man in the world. Maybe he uses Star Labs to create Bizzaro, or commisions Metallo to hunt down Superman...

 

[Nivek]

Originally Posted by Still A ThorFan
But if the Post was raving about how good Superman was going to be you guys would be saying that is the best newspaper ever, you know that is the damn truth.

No I don't. And the guys who would be saying that--suck.

I concour, I doubt that paper would ever rave about it anyway, it sells more papers to crap on it.

Seriously, the paper has a hardcore tabloid reputation, it's like SR getting a write up in Star, The Globe, or the National Enquirer. Dont take it anymore than that. It's funny seeing anyone defending an article written in it, regardless of it's tone being "not that bad".

 

[DavidTyler]

The article is going off the quotes from Singer that have been bandied about since last year's Wondercon. The writer takes those quotes and made an interpretation. What's wrong with that?

Regarding his interpretation. It seems accurate. That does not mean it is emo, or what have you. It means that Superman may be treated with emotional maturity. It also means that Superman may be a love story, which is not a bad thing in my mind necessarily. Whether it translates to film well is the question, and I have my doubts. But the action looks good so far, so that might keep it interesting if the story devolves to Peter Parker standards.

And Oldguy, how can any of this be bad news to you? It's as Post-crisis as it gets, if true.

Very valid points.

While I'm not a fan of the Kid concept, the Donner rehash, and some of the suit changes, the article is pretty much what Singer has been saying right along and, as much as I'm not crazy about some of the choices made, it's completely viable. It takes Superman into the arena that - not John Byrne - but Ordway, Stern, and Wolfman took him. Self doubts and all.

And I completely agree that you just can't do 'cardboard superhero' and have it interesting and engaging. The 'Peter Parker' standard you mention is pretty much where this character needs to be and has been since Post Crisis. I know you don't like Post Crisis but understand that this is what's at it's roots - humanization of the character.

So, Matches, I find it interesting that on this we agree.

 

[MatchesMalone]

I think it's funny that we are so very opposite. I'm sold on all the visual stuff, but the story is what concerns me the most. I can't stand to think of Clark Kent in the same way I think of Peter Parker, and if the movie promotes that kind of "why me" attitude I will not enjoy it at all.

Regarding the viability of a hero with flaws - of course that is a totally viable concept, and I have never been against mature storytelling. I think what Post-crisis has done (with a few exceptions) has not been mature storytelling. That's why I prefer Pre-crisis, because if I'm not going to get maturity, I'm at least going to have fun. The best possibility is the combination of mature storytelling and fun. Happens every so often. If Superman Returns manages to do that, I'm in.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

As a native New Yorker (The Bronx) I'm not a big fan of the post either. But I stand by my opinion that if a positive review was written on Superman a lot of you would not have bashed the post, and you would have agreed with the positive review because you're biased.

See, I hated the first 2 Spiderman films even though they got good reviews all over the place, therefore I am unbiased.

And someone mentioned that since the Post is owned by Murdoch, the poor review was given on purpose because it is a Warner Bros. film. That was stupid and makes no sense at all.

 

[MatchesMalone]

Most people are stupid on the internet.

And hating something a lot of other people liked does not make you unbiased. Quite the opposite, actually. Not that it's a bad thing, hate what you want. But don't pretend to be objective about an opinion. That's pretty stupid as well.

BOOOOOURNS to Clark Parker!

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

And hating something a lot of other people liked does not make you unbiased. Quite the opposite, actually. Not that it's a bad thing, hate what you want. But don't pretend to be objective about an opinion. That's pretty stupid as well.

Agreed. I know people that go out of their way to hate the things that are popular. Then they like things that are obscure or not that popular and get this egotrip over their percieved eliteness.

 

[Oldguy]

The article is going off the quotes from Singer that have been bandied about since last year's Wondercon. The writer takes those quotes and made an interpretation. What's wrong with that?

Regarding his interpretation. It seems accurate. That does not mean it is emo, or what have you. It means that Superman may be treated with emotional maturity. It also means that Superman may be a love story, which is not a bad thing in my mind necessarily. Whether it translates to film well is the question, and I have my doubts. But the action looks good so far, so that might keep it interesting if the story devolves to Peter Parker standards.

And Oldguy, how can any of this be bad news to you? It's as Post-crisis as it gets, if true.

Matches, I cheered when Batman told Superman that he hadn't inspired anyone since he died. I'm glad Crisis killed the alien messiah, and I'm also glad to see the current development of the character.

I'm sorry, your going to have to look elsewhere to find someone to champion Post-crisis, cause it's dead now. 52 skiddoo baby!!

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?

What's to read into here exactly? The writer is obviously unhappy with redefining the character to fit the filmaker's vision, but he goes out of his way to justify why Singer did so, hell he portrays the bastardization as nessecary, he essentially defends Singer.

You think my opinion is some kind of rarity amoungst Superman fans? Or even casual fans? We aren't irrational haters for wanting accurate characterization. From what's been released storywise, there's cause for alarm.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

We aren't irrational haters

never said you were, and I don't even LIKE categories like that. "Gusher" "Hater" "Basher" "Lover" all that stuff is CRAP. It's mindless reductionism so that people don't have to pay any attention to the actual arguments, they can just rely on generalities and old, perfected arguments from OTHER threads that half the time don't even apply. They only fit if you can categorize the person you're arguing with as a "Basher" "Gusher" or whatever--and then you can tee off to your hearts content arguing with an abstract instead of having to pay attention to what's being said

The writer is obviously unhappy with redefining the character to fit the filmaker's vision,

That's what I'm talking about when I say "You're reading into things" actually You're unhappy with that aspect, so you see the writer being unhappy with it. I see more the writer being unhappy not with the redefinition of the character--he sees that as necessary. he's unhappy with OUR TIME and our conception of masculinity. It's at that point, to me, that the article devolves into another "It was so much better in my day" thread that's very often boring and tainted by raw nostalgia anyway.

But the parts he writes about the movie divorced from that aren't altogether negative, and even the parts he DOES write about in regards to today's version of masculinity aren't totally negative.

No, I don't think your opinion is a rarity. I don't know why you'd even think that, there's nothing in my previous responses that even hints at it. You got a chip on your shoulder on this one, although it's understandable, you've been fighting on this board for so long I can see why you'd start apprehensively entering into discussions looking for the first sign of "basher/gusher" closed-mindedness to pounce on

but of course there's cause for alarm. You've read me being alarmed in here. I'm pretty sure you have. The story is still up in the air. A lot of people have forgotten that in the meantime--but there's still plenty unknown about this movie that has question marks popping up all over.

 

[MatchesMalone]

One thing does give me hope, however: Jimmy Olsen is the one who tells Clark about Lois and the new guy, which is always just comedy anyway; and the scene from the storyboarded ShoWest footage showing Clark busting the picture frame of Lois and the new guy - that's a good kind of reaction for Superman. So, I still have hope that the relationship aspects will have as much finesse as the action ones. But I have to go with Fatboy and Oldguy, there are question marks popping up. But only question marks, no red exclamation points yet.

 

[MatchesMalone]

Matches, I cheered when Batman told Superman that he hadn't inspired anyone since he died. I'm glad Crisis killed the alien messiah, and I'm also glad to see the current development of the character.

I'm sorry, your going to have to look elsewhere to find someone to champion Post-crisis, cause it's dead now. 52 skiddoo baby!!

Guh? So you were glad that Crisis was a neutering, and now you're glad that they're growing him some more balls? Or are you finally realizing that the current crop of creators want to tell Pre-Crisis stories with a modern-day sophisitication, and this is as awesome as it sounds?

What's to read into here exactly? The writer is obviously unhappy with redefining the character to fit the filmaker's vision, but he goes out of his way to justify why Singer did so, hell he portrays the bastardization as nessecary, he essentially defends Singer.

What bastardization? Did you read For Tomorrow? Or any of the recent comics? Superman's been like the guy in the article described for quite a while now. Whether he will be like that, or more like his 1978 counterpart is my biggest worry. And I can only hope it's the latter. I see you failing to reconcile your contradictory images of Superman, Oldguy. Do you want the pre-crisis machismo, or do you want the post-crisis sensitivity and angsty inner turmoil? You can't have both without a completely conflicted character.

You think my opinion is some kind of rarity amoungst Superman fans? Or even casual fans? We aren't irrational haters for wanting accurate characterization. From what's been released storywise, there's cause for alarm.

And if your concern is over Lois, then stop right there. Thank God they have re-injected some kind of turbulence there, because it's so damn boring for them to be in lovey-dovey love with the marriage and no problems. BOOOOORING! I applaud what Singer has done there, and I don't care about the kid - as long as it doesn't have Kryptonian DNA and telepathy.

 

[Oldguy]

Guh? So you were glad that Crisis was a neutering...

I don't value your opinion as fact, Matches. I'm glad they made him human after all, as Shuster and Siegel intended. Maybe at times it swung a little too far human, but at least characters grew and developed.

What bastardization?

We'll have to wait and see the full extent of Singer's bastardization. Things like the absence, the kid, the crime gang is what I'm referring to.

... Do you want the pre-crisis machismo, or do you want the post-crisis sensitivity and angsty inner turmoil? You can't have both without a completely conflicted character.

Moderation young man, literature need not reduce characters to 2 dimensional caricatures. Superman is plenty Macho now, never stopped really, but he also has issues in life that he just can't punch his way out of. Villains he can't touch, love interests that have conflicted with his occupational hazards.

One day when you grow up, you'll learn to appreciate the subtle things in life instead of black and white formula characterization.

And if your concern is over Lois, then stop right there. Thank God they have re-injected some kind of turbulence there, because it's so damn boring for them to be in lovey-dovey love with the marriage and no problems,BOOOOORING!

Ah yes that's right, like being married has been nothing but smooth sailing, not like they have addressed what it would be like being married to The Super-hero and the stresses brought on by it.

I applaud what Singer has done there, and I don't care about the kid - as long as it doesn't have Kryptonian DNA and telepathy.

Simpletons rejoice! Drama for drama's sake that totally misrepresents the character. I can give them the benefit of the doubt, as far as Lois moving on, but having a kid out of wedlock at the prime of her career? Not ****ing likely. She would have that nipped in the bud.

But of course she didn't nip it in the bud for the same reason you are going to mow down come June 30.

 

[Oldguy]

...That's what I'm talking about when I say "You're reading into things" actually You're unhappy with that aspect, so you see the writer being unhappy with it. I see more the writer being unhappy not with the redefinition of the character--he sees that as necessary. he's unhappy with OUR TIME and our conception of masculinity. It's at that point, to me, that the article devolves into another "It was so much better in my day" thread that's very often boring and tainted by raw nostalgia anyway.

So let me get this straight, you are evaluating my opinion, how I'm "reading into things" based on how you read into things? No facts, just my opinion is off base because it conflicts with yours?

You think the cart pushes the horse, that the writer is dismayed with modern masculinity and how it reflects in SR. I think the horse pulls the cart, that the writer is disappointed with Singer's vision, a softening to make him relatable to popular metro trends.

Not much difference really, just you splitting hairs cause your fingers are cold I guess. But in the end, your opinion is different from mine, so I must be right, according to your rationale. Thanks Fatboy!

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Funny, when Oldguy appears on a thread, you can certainly guarantee things will get derailed and quick.

He's like the suicidal/homicidal Amtrak always headed towards oncoming trains.

 

[Oldguy]

Funny, when SolidSnakeMGS appears on a thread, nobody cares.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Funny, when SolidSnakeMGS appears on a thread, nobody cares.

Apparently, you do enough to post. Awww, thanks big guy!