Superman Returns One scene that would have been better if used in an origin movie...

[ZIPBAGS]

My son loves watching the shuttle/plane scene. And it occured to me. That scene were Supes rescues the plane would have been an awesome way to introduce Superman if this was an origin movie. And yes, I know in the retconned Superman origin in the comics. Supes saves Lois from a crashing shuttle. But, watch the scene again and try to think of it as if this was the first time everyone from the pilot of the fighter plane, Lois, all the way to the baseball stadium crowd sees Supes. It would have been awesome.

And on a nitpick to the movie. For a non-origin movie. Its terrible that we don't see Superman until 35 minutes into the movie.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oB_D8OfC6E

Check this out

 

[mego joe]

My son loves watching the shuttle/plane scene. And it occured to me. That scene were Supes rescues the plane would have been an awesome way to introduce Superman if this was an origin movie. And yes, I know in the retconned Superman origin in the comics. Supes saves Lois from a crashing shuttle. But, watch the scene again and try to think of it as if this was the first time everyone from the pilot of the fighter plane, Lois, all the way to the baseball stadium crowd sees Supes. It would have been awesome.

I agree.

And on a nitpick to the movie. For a non-origin movie. Its terrible that we don't see Superman until 35 minutes into the movie.

[/quote]

 

[Angeloz]

Does that mean you'd like to see the Return to Krypton scene or not? I would in the deleted scenes at least. Plus others that were missing.

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

Does that mean you'd like to see the Return to Krypton scene or not? I would in the deleted scenes at least. Plus others that were missing.

Angeloz

Me?

Personally, I don't care about it one way or the other. What really matters is its context in the story.

 

[Angeloz]

Thanks for answering. But I'm wondering why quote the 35 minutes thing. Was it a mistake on your part?

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

Thanks for answering. But I'm wondering why quote the 35 minutes thing. Was it a mistake on your part?

Angeloz

I just neglected to delete it out. I wasn't really responding to that part of the post. DIdn't mean to mislead anyone. I was agreeing to the part in the first part of the post.

To me if the story is good enough it doesn't really matter when you first see the character in costume.

 

[Angeloz]

I agree (about the last part). Will there be an apocalypse?

Angeloz

 

[matthooper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oB_D8OfC6E

Check this out

Somebody should tell Singer that is what chemistry between Superman and Lois looks like.

 

[Angeloz]

What does it show? I may be near my limits.

Angeloz

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

My son loves watching the shuttle/plane scene. And it occured to me. That scene were Supes rescues the plane would have been an awesome way to introduce Superman if this was an origin movie. And yes, I know in the retconned Superman origin in the comics. Supes saves Lois from a crashing shuttle. But, watch the scene again and try to think of it as if this was the first time everyone from the pilot of the fighter plane, Lois, all the way to the baseball stadium crowd sees Supes. It would have been awesome.

And on a nitpick to the movie. For a non-origin movie. Its terrible that we don't see Superman until 35 minutes into the movie.

Sorry i have to disagree, i thought that scene was a perfect return for Superman after a long absence, i just loved the look of shock on Lois' face when Superman fly's past the window, a subtle but brilliant little moment IMO that gives me goosebumps every time i see it, also later on i loved all the other people's faces when they finally see him again.

They all thought they were going to die, and then Superman returns out of nowhere to save them, a brilliant scene in the movie IMO.

Plus you do realise it takes 40 mins for Spiderman to show up in Spidey 1 and that Batman takes over an hour to show up in BB dont you?

 

[dr collossus]

Sorry i have to disagree, i thought that scene was a perfect return for Superman after a long absence, i just loved the look of shock on Lois' face when Superman fly's past the window, a subtle but brilliant little moment IMO that gives me goosebumps every time i see it, also later on i loved all the other people's faces when they finally see him again.

They all thought they were going to die, and then Superman returns out of nowhere to save them, a brilliant scene in the movie IMO.

I agree. This is one of the things I love about the character in general; Superman as a symbol of hope. You know when you see that blue and red streak that you're going to be ok!

Plus you do realise it takes 40 mins for Spiderman to show up in Spidey 1 and that Batman takes over an hour to show up in BB dont you?

You do realise those two are both origin stories, as per his original post?

 

[Angeloz]

But isn't "Superman Returns" an introduction film. So in a sense it has to explain the characters and world it is in. So it's an origin film of sorts. I'll admit I'm glad it wasn't fully one as there's the 1978 film already. Which took around an hour for him to show up.

Angeloz

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I agree. This is one of the things I love about the character in general; Superman as a symbol of hope. You know when you see that blue and red streak that you're going to be ok!

Exactly, that scene just embodied that IMO.

You do realise those two are both origin stories, as per his original post?

Yes, but as Angeloz says below, SR is an origin movie of sorts as it has to re-introduce the characters and the world.

But isn't "Superman Returns" an introduction film. So in a sense it has to explain the characters and world it is in. So it's an origin film of sorts. I'll admit I'm glad it wasn't fully one as there's the 1978 film already. Which took around an hour for him to show up.

Angeloz

Agreed

 

[dr collossus]

I'm sorry, I don't get it. Either its an origin story or its not. There are so many arguments based on this 'vague history' idea, either the story reintroduces the character (which is decidedly NOT what Singer claims) or it doesn't.

 

[Angeloz]

It did reintroduce the character and world.

Angeloz

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'm sorry, I don't get it. Either its an origin story or its not. There are so many arguments based on this 'vague history' idea, either the story reintroduces the character (which is decidedly NOT what Singer claims) or it doesn't.

Its not an origin story, but it is origin story like because (As Angeloz said) the characters and world had to be re-introduced to both new and old fans.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't see how it can be seen as an orgin story in anyway. The director himself calls it a vague sequel.

 

[Angeloz]

As stated it had to introduce the characters (actors) and world to people. Both the fans and non-fans.

Angeloz

 

[dr collossus]

That doesn't make it an origin story. Any film which isn't a sequel has to introduce the world and the characters to the audience.

 

[Angeloz]

Actually I consider it an introduction film or re-introduction film. I'm glad it isn't an origin film because there's already one (or more if you count television) around. But they do similar things.

Angeloz

 

[dr collossus]

Yeah that's basically just inconsistency and incoherence. It was a poor choice if you ask me. They should have either done a proper origin story, or had a short origin recap section at the beginning. Haha, SII managed it in under four minutes!

 

[Angeloz]

Which I think confused me as I don't think I'd seen the first film and I was a kid. Although I'm glad it was there 'cos I'd never seen Superman before.

Angeloz

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I don't see how it can be seen as an orgin story in anyway. The director himself calls it a vague sequel.

The director also said it is a re-introduction to the characters and world (and for many a first introduction to those things), so it follows the same formula of an origin movie IMO.

 

[dr collossus]

The director also said it is a re-introduction to the characters and world (and for many a first introduction to those things), so it follows the same formula of an origin movie IMO.

And that's one of the problems with it. The whole thing was a big confused mess, lacking direction and intention. It wasn't an origin movie, yet you're right it followed the formula of one. That didn't work.

Basically Singer tried to be too clever. He tried to make an origin movie that wasn't an origin movie. As I said above, any original movie has to introduce its world and characters to the audience, without being an 'origin' story. What he should have done, was:

a) Restarted the franchise and actually done a new origin movie
b) Made a movie with an already well established Superman, and not tried to make a movie with all the issues a hero faces in an origin story in the context of a non-origin story
c) Found some middle ground, and done an origin sequence in the beginning before moving on to something more original

And there's your problem. The movie was not supposed to be an origin story, yet that's the formula it followed.