Superman Returns New details on S2's fit in SR...

[bosef982]

I have to respectfully disagree. By no means do i know this movie will be a resounding success (as I have yet to see more than a teaser, tv spot and trailer), however at the same time I find what Singer has done to be quite intelligent. I felt Singer was painted into a corner long before he started making this movie. The original Superman Movie (STM) is still fairly mainstream and is considered the "father" of the modern day superhero movie. It did a wonderful job of showing his origin. In addition, the televison show Smallville demonstates another rendition of his origin (while actually also using elements from STM). For Singer to do yet another origin story would be extremely redundant. This, in my opinion, would lead to even more comparisons to STM.
Nolan was able to get away with doing a re-start of Batman because Burton, while doing a terrific job of illustarting the Joker's creation, did not do a good job at all at showing how Batman truly came to be. In essence, Batman Begins was the 1st real origin story told (and ther ewas also no live action television show concurrently airing).
I feel at this point that Singer is trying to be "original" by not re-telling the origin we all know so well. His intention is likely to tell a new story. However, to do this, he needs a background or better yet a foundation on which to tell this story. STM is probably the most wide-known version of Superman there is. Therefore it is probably the best backstory to build off of. From the previews it appears that he is trying to incorporate some of the newer themes as well. Luthor now has wealth (he apparently has his own helicpoter that he uses to go to the fortress as well as a yacht...like in the animated series). It appears that Singer wants to use elements from the original movies and not actual events. This way he has the freedom to be original while not having to re-tell the origin. The irony is that for the most part people want the same well known (and awesome) superman theme march. It would be strange to have a completely new origin tale with the same music. That would really confuse people.
Anways...As i said before..I really have no idea how this will all turn out....The kid (is it supes, is it whites, is it luthors)...who knows...The suit...the actors...only seeing it for real will i be able to form a true opinion. However, I do think that Singer has done what he could considering the limitations that existed prior to him even undertaking this endeavor.

Good post, man. And you forgot that people are making this unneccessarily complicated intead of taking the Bond approach to the sequels, which do pick and choose certain things to move on with.

 

[bosef982]

Except that the alternative to a "sequel" or "remake" as Supzfan describes it is not necessarily an origin film.

The Superman premise is so well know, and so easily established, that Singer could have given us a film that neither felt compelled to revisit and retread what had already gone before nor retell Superman's origin.

IIRC, for all its many faults Kevin Smith's script would have done just that, launching the audience straight into a fresh, new story.

The Kevin Smith script was a joke. Superman eating spaghetti after stopping an assassination? A talking suit? Corny. Campy. Cheesy. And poor writing.

Also, it smacked of lacking any sort of vision outside of fandom.

 

[Desk]

I guess I am not convinced that Singer isn't launching us into a fresh new story as well. Kevin Smith would have still based his version of Superman on a preivioulsy existing one.

He would? Please cite any evidence of this, because having just looked over his script again I can't see anything that links his film to any specific existing take on Superman.

Rather, it's a very general, standalone story.

Singer is doing the same. I don't see the flaw in modeling the fortress of solitude, the music, and jor-el after the original movies. What have you seen in the previews that demonstrates that this movie is directly based on events that transpired in STM or SM2 for that matter. (Desk, this isn't rhetorical..i am actually asking...I am pretty open mided about this issue and am neither totally fro Singer's vision nor against it)

Well, you've just listed a number of elements yourself, including the design of The Fortress of Solitude, the music, and the fact that you've actually got one of the stars reprising his role (the late Brando).

On top of this you've got a Hackman-style wig-wearing, land-grabbing Lex Luthor, a comedy bungler Clark Kent, and the revelation that sex with Lois resulted in a son. Ben Hubbard? That character only existed in Donner's version of the Superman mythology.

I'm sorry, but the fact that Singer's film is directly linked to the original Christopher Reeve films is inescapable.

Worse still, large parts of this production film just seem to be an uninspired retread of those films.... the narrative structure, Lex being betrayed by his kooky girlfriend, Superman regaining his powers, etc..

The only truly original elements in Singer's films are the things which many fans have no wish to see... Superman abanonding his Neverending Battle for several years, and the decision to make him an absentee father to an illegitimate son.

 

[Desk]

The Kevin Smith script was a joke. Superman eating spaghetti after stopping an assassination? A talking suit? Corny. Campy. Cheesy. And poor writing.

Also, it smacked of lacking any sort of vision outside of fandom.

"For all its many faults."

Once again... "For all its many faults."

That's what I wrote, because while I welcomed Smith's approach of a standalone film that throws the audience straight into a fresh story I didn't think much of his screenplay as a whole.

Smith's basic approach was sound... his execution was lowsy.

 

[Whack Arnolds]

The new movie, should've been a relevant re-start origin ala Birthright. Birthright is the best Superman story, ever. Beats the pants off S:TM.

 

[Sub-Zero]

I'm an idiot for speculating? Simply incredible!

no. you're an idiot for acting like you know what's going on. i'm not saying that i do, but you're logic is pretty messed up. the fact that all you got from my post was that i called you an idiot is SIMPLY INCREDIBLE!!!!!!

 

[supzfan]

Using the now-dead Brando is, in my opinion, really low. How could this NOT recall STM? Ditto for the John Williams theme, Fortress and storyline elements. And that goes double for all those similiar scenes, nods, touches and homages. I can't believe that Singer couldn't have come up with something more exciting and original. Superman has almost 70 years of comics under his belt to draw from and this is what we get? Oh, I remember, Singer didn't read the comic books! Isn't that a nice slap-in-the-face for all Superrman fans out there who did and still do. The fans wait almost 30 years for this? With hundreds of guys doing superthings in colorful underwear nowadays, this movie has to be spectacularly different, really stand out in effects, story and acting. From what I've seen so far it hasn't done so. Can anyone honestly say this is the best Superman movie possible? The best story, cast and effects? There is just too much that seems so wrong with this picture.

 

[Retroman]

Hmmm....

October 18, 2004
He also talked about how and his writing parterns crafted a story which could be compared to Tim Burton's Batman (1989). He said that he is going to have the first two films serve as a sort of vague history, and that this next film will pick up after Superman has been gone for 6 years. He said that the story is going to approach Superman as sort of being a returning Messiah (sp). Singer also had an interesting comment that people in the movie sort of wish that Superman had never existed, because once he disappeared, the world fell into chaos.

Source: http://www.superherohype.com/news/supermannews.php?id=2119

 

[Showtime]

I think Singer is just throwing up smokescreens, one interview he is going in one direction, another interview it's another direction. One minute it is Superman III, the next minute doesn't take the 2nd movie into account, and sometimes it uses the first two films as a jumping point.

 

[The Kid]

That's disgusting and tasteless and belittles anyone who knows someone who has or have themselves been raped.

whoa! what a post to read while calmly strolling through the threads today. Sorry. I have a cousin who has been raped so that's absolutely not my intention at all. I'm very confused that you'd think that way. The Super-rape is what I use to describe Superman's ability to make women forget that they slept with him. That's the best way I know of to describe it and I think it might be a problem if that's allowed to be part of Superman Return's continuity. I don't see that as such a problem, but I guess it is... ?

 

[bosef982]

whoa! what a post to read while calmly strolling through the threads today. Sorry. I have a cousin who has been raped so that's absolutely not my intention at all. I'm very confused that you'd think that way. The Super-rape is what I use to describe Superman's ability to make women forget that they slept with him. That's the best way I know of to describe it and I think it might be a problem if that's allowed to be part of Superman Return's continuity. I don't see that as such a problem, but I guess it is... ?

Just be careful b/c that's an awfully strong connotation you're going for there. It really makes something sound extreme. While the ethicallity of Superman sleeping and then making someone forget is up for debate, it's certainly not rape by any means. I mean, it was the 70s, I don't think the whole ramapnt fear of having sex once and getting pregant instantly was present, so he probably saw (or the filmmakers) no problem with portraying that. However, there is no unconditional proof that Superman and Lois slept together -- just circumstantial evidence.

 

[Desk]

That's disgusting and tasteless and belittles anyone who knows someone who has or have themselves been raped.

Don't be so touchy... there are people on this forum calling for Lois' son to be murdered - why no similar outrage about references to infanticide?

 

[The Kid]

Oh, I see...Well in the end, that's my dilema. I want them to have slept together, you know, at some point in the past, and that's how Jason became his super-son from his super-seed. But I don't really want it to have anything to do with that possible one night romp in Superman 2 and the memory wipe that occured afterwards. It'd complicate their relationship too much. The other option is that he's not superman's boy, but I don't want that either.....I wish Moriarty had explained how the kid is superman's with more detail. Mo, if your're bored and decided to read the hype for whatever reason, could you drop me a bone here? thanks, man.

Yikes, looks like a fight's brewing... i didn't want this to happen... *Slowly backs away from thread and runs....*

 

[Superfreak]

This is not directed at anyone in particular, I'm just sick of seeing these threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


GET OVER IT PEOPLE!!!!! The concept of this film is NOT hard to grasp. It's a sequel, not a continuation of the orignal series. Please it's that simple.

 

[musclesforsupes]

Superman II is in continuty according Harris, plus kid is supes, remember moriarity and the AICN script leak.

 

[lujho]

how on earth would that happen?

Why wouldn't it? She doesn't know Superman's Clark. She loves Superman. They screw. Unless he accidentally puts his glasses on and straightens his hair part-way through, she's not going to recognise him as Clark for the same reason she never does.

 

[lujho]

GET OVER IT PEOPLE!!!!! The concept of this film is NOT hard to grasp. It's a sequel, not a continuation of the orignal series.

They're the same thing. It's both of those things, and yet it's trying to be something new too. It's trying to have it both ways - have the cake and eat it too. It's a mess, really.

 

[Matt]

This is not directed at anyone in particular, I'm just sick of seeing these threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


GET OVER IT PEOPLE!!!!! The concept of this film is NOT hard to grasp. It's a sequel, not a continuation of the orignal series. Please it's that simple.

Wait.....what?

A sequel is a continuation of something

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Weyseed,

The rape analogy might not have been the best choice of words (even though I understand where you're going with it). Let's uh...move on okay?

And for the rest of you: please stop calling eachother idiots, etc. It's just a movie and some users may take offense.

 

[Spider-jedi]

Why wouldn't it? She doesn't know Superman's Clark. She loves Superman. They screw. Unless he accidentally puts his glasses on and straightens his hair part-way through, she's not going to recognise him as Clark for the same reason she never does.

doesn't that sound funny superman is suppose to be noble he won't just sleep with her and then bust

 

[Backdrifter]

Bryan Singer: The 2nd film is not in my history. It's not a particularly good film, either, if you watch it again.

Niether is S:TM if you watch it again. Way to go Singer. Reeve and John Williams are the glue that holds S:TM together. The plot is laughable and the villians are incompetently bad.

 

[Dope Nose]

Birthright is the best Superman story, ever.

pfft! sorry, but you're way off.

 

[Superfreak]

Wait.....what?

A sequel is a continuation of something

the difference is, is that the narrative line of the first two movies have been broken. It is no longer a story that climax's with the defeat of Zod. New threat new movie etc. Best example I can think of is the Star trek movies. ST1, stand alone, STII-V direct continuations of an ongoing plot, STVI, stand alone sequel.

so, STM and SII direct continuation, SR stand alone sequel (it's called Superman: 10 Years after Zod)

 

[lujho]

doesn't that sound funny superman is suppose to be noble he won't just sleep with her and then bust

Yet he does anyway in this film (or its backstory), whether he's Clark at the time or he erases her memory or not.

I'm not saying whether he should or would do it, just that it's possible for Lois to sleep with Superman and still not be aware he's Clark.

 

[The Kid]

Wesyeed,

The rape analogy might not have been the best choice of words (even though I understand where you're going with it). Let's uh...move on okay?

And for the rest of you: please stop calling eachother idiots, etc. It's just a movie and some users may take offense.

ok, i'll be more careful with word choice from now on.

Idiot's my favorite word of all though...

We may soon discover how Superman could have father'd Jason once someone gets that novelization and gives us all details... ultimately only the movie will be the true proof of whether superman mated with lois at one time in their history yadda yadda yadda, and later performed his memory wipe of course.