Superman Returns Question for those who didnt like/disappointed the movie...

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I agree with you there, it's subtle, they don't put it all on a silver platter like Raimi and the Spiderman franchise, which aggrevates me about Spiderman.

Exactly, though i like the Spiderman movies, there is hardly any intellegence in them and EVERYTHING is explained. Sometimes, its best just to let the audience fill in the blanks. Some people i know who saw it havent seen the Donner movies for 20 years, yet they still loved SR.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I love it, whenever a SR fan wants to avoid talking about the movie's lame duck boxoffice they bash Spider-Man.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'm not bashing Spiderman, i love both Spidey movies and am looking forward to 3 immensely. Spidey and X-Men are my favourite heroes above ANY other. But the Spidey movies dont have any intellegence behind them, thats a truth not a criticism.

 

[dar-El]

An intelligent film maker who IS a fan would not screw with the mythology. Singer is neither! Ask yourself why did warners pull the plug on the JJ Abrhams superman film a few years back? That script was leaked and proved that Abrhams wasnt a true fan. I say that because he changed too much of the myth which angered the fans. Singer has done the same! At lease Raimi is true to the spirit of spidey.

 

[mego joe]

An intelligent film maker who IS a fan would not screw with the mythology. Singer is neither! Ask yourself why did warners pull the plug on the JJ Abrhams superman film a few years back? That script was leaked and proved that Abrhams wasnt a true fan. I say that because he changed too much of the myth which angered the fans. Singer has done the same! At lease Raimi is true to the spirit of spidey.

So true, so true.

 

[mego joe]

well....I'm not against a little intrigue or mystery. If those elements keep you interested in the story and characters....then that is fine.

But, if it's so vague and open to interpretation.......then it can create confusion.....especially when it relates to a character's powers / abilities ( Superman's vulnerability to Kryptonite ) or if a movie is based on previous movies.......

In the case of the X-movies......there were no previous movies to be based upon.....Xavier's mysterious past and relations to the other characters was not dealt upon previously.....so that creates intrigue and makes the viewers curious......

It would be like a director, 10 / 20 years from now, deciding to do another X-men movie that continues Singer's vision, and ignores X3. But, if that movie is not a direct sequel to the events of X2, and is instead a "vague sequel" to X1 and X2 that is related somehow to those movies.....then that can create confusion.

Especially when the director starts changing the relationships around. Says, having Cyclops and Jean be married. Then, the audience has to compare that to their relationship in X1 and X2, and try to figure out how this new movie fits in.

And, that's what happened in SR. In SR, Supes and Lois obviously had a prior relationship, had sex, and then Supes left abruptly without saying goodbye to Lois. Also, it appears that Lois doesn't know Supes is Clark. Plus, it establishes that Supes and Lex had a prior showdown....which landed Lex in jail.

But, how does that fit into Superman 1 and 2 ( which SR is supposed to be vaguely based on )? In Superman 1, Lois died, and Supes turned back time ( disobeying Jor-El's command ) to save the woman he loves. Is that the same Superman who would sleep with Lois and then leave abruptly without a goodbye?

In Superman 2, Lois found out Superman's identity, Supes gave up his power, slept with Lois, got his powers back, then Amnesia kissed Lois. Does SR include all that into its continuity?

When did Supes and Lois sleep together? Did they do it ala Superman 2? Or, as SR seems to suggest, did they do it after the "First Flight" night in Superman 1? However, in Superman 1, that "First Flight" nigh scene is a very innocent one and never implies that they hopped into the sack afterwards.

Same with Lex. Was Lex in jail because of the events in Superman 1? Or was it after the events in Superman 2?

SR leaves all these questions open......because it ( or Singer ) never clearly delineates how SR fits in......and that's confusing.....especially to ppl who are NOT familiar with the older movies.

Excellent points all around.

 

[mego joe]

Singer has never been a director who 'lays it all out there' so to speak, he likes the audience to discover some things for themselves, like how Xavier knew a lot more about Wolverine's past than he was letting on in X2 or a lot of the history between Stryker and Xavier in X2 also, we had to work some of that out for ourselves and i for one prefer it that way.

So it would be possible to interpret the change in color in SUperman's costume in SR reflects that it is really the evil Superman from SUperman III, which would go along way in explaining Superman's bad behaviorin SR.

 

[mego joe]

I'm not bashing Spiderman, i love both Spidey movies and am looking forward to 3 immensely. Spidey and X-Men are my favourite heroes above ANY other. But the Spidey movies dont have any intellegence behind them, thats a truth not a criticism.

Just like it's a truth that SR is one of the worst comic book movies ever made?

Why do you say there's no intelligence behind the Spider-Man movies?

 

[mego joe]

Exactly, though i like the Spiderman movies, there is hardly any intellegence in them and EVERYTHING is explained. Sometimes, its best just to let the audience fill in the blanks. Some people i know who saw it havent seen the Donner movies for 20 years, yet they still loved SR.

What's wrong with explaining things in movies. What should Raimi have not explained in your opinion? Often, omitting explanations or discussion on events in movies leads to confusion and misunderstanding of the intent or context of actions or events. Ex...SUperman Returns.

These are supposed to be pretty straight forward characters. Adding skeletons in the closet and compromising a characters ethics to attempt to add depth only serve to detract from the essence and basic goodness of the characters to a point where they become unrecognizable.


BTW- None of my friends who saw SR liked it. And they are non-comic reading folk.

 

[Showtime]

I love it, whenever a SR fan wants to avoid talking about the movie's lame duck boxoffice they bash Spider-Man.

I've noticed this on the boards, but just like SR isn't the "cat's meow", Spiderman isn't the "best thing since sliced bread." Movies can always be better.

Now Spiderman 3 is bogged down with 4 villians; I hope it works out well.

 

[Jasomius]

BTW- None of my friends who saw SR liked it. And they are non-comic reading folk.

Your friends are not representatives of the entire planet Earth.

 

[buggs0268]

I'll definetly be picking up SR when it drops(heh). Very cool movie. It delivered in all the areas it needed to for me. I can't wait to see how they build on it for the next.

And your post relates to people who didnt like or were disapointed by the movie how? Oh that's right. You are an SR lover who for some reason has to post in any negative thread on this bard about SR on how much you love this movie, instead of following the simple instructions of the title, or the original poster.

 

[buggs0268]

Those are strange moments in the Hulk, but Superman lifting up a giant continent is just as hokey.

There is ONE thing that could have made it better:

Lifting it from the TOP, instead of the BOTTOM. I have no grip on how Superman could have balanced that thing while lifting it from the bottom, given its size compared to his size, regardless of how strong he is.

Yeah. It was as bad as him lifting up the ship by standing on it. I understand the logic, but that was just "lets save money" instead of having supes floating and lifting it up with his legs in the air.

 

[buggs0268]

Earth(dirt,soil) protects u from radiation,if their is enough of it between you and the source....Its true,look it up.why do u think old bomb shelters are underground?yes to protect from the blast,but also from radiation.

Steill defies logic of Kryptonite that is established. Only lead prtoects Superman from it's effects, not a lot of dirt. And it was coming through the land mass as he was carrying it. Also, he had a piece in him so he would have never been able to do any of that stuff in the first damn place according to the established canon of Kryptonite.

 

[buggs0268]

God this is crazy we're arguing over a movie. Still i find it hard to believe he could lift what is essentially a giant piece of kryptonite. If he landed on it and got his ass kicked by 3 mortals there's no way he could lift the damn thing.

while he had a piece of it in him, which, no matter how small, would have made him unable to do it in the first place.

 

[buggs0268]

well,he did recharge first,and the kryptonite on N.K. wasnt pure 'K'.It was mixed with the crystals lex used to make it.The more it grew the more it was diluted.

Okay. First, were are you getting this diluted stuff? Secondly, it wasn't gettting diluted. It was growing and building more of itself, so the kryptonite that depowered him when he stood on it is the same Kryptonite that was breaking through the dirt he was lifting. It started as one piece and grew, and it was not diluting itself. It was gowing bigger.

 

[buggs0268]

Singer has never been a director who 'lays it all out there' so to speak, he likes the audience to discover some things for themselves, like how Xavier knew a lot more about Wolverine's past than he was letting on in X2 or a lot of the history between Stryker and Xavier in X2 also, we had to work some of that out for ourselves and i for one prefer it that way.

That wasn't Singer wanting to keep it a mystery. It was a part of Wolverines storyline. Xavier knew as he could go in and read his mind and know what went down, but he told Wolverine that in order for Wolverine to get over it, he needed to discover it for himself and not just be given the answere. It is a plot point to give Wolverine something to do character wise in the movie, or he would just be standing around. It is called creting drama. It is not for the audience to figure out on their own. It is to drag a storyline over a couple of movies to give the character something to do.

 

[buggs0268]

Well wasnt Lex now a millionaire? I'm sure he could have had plenty of stuff delivered to NK to make it into a place were people would want to live.

From what. A country that that very same land he was growing and devoloping was destgroying the countries that he was getting his stuff from. Who would sell it to him. You think anyone here would sell anything to Osama Bin Ladden to destroy our country knowingly? NO. Everyone, and I mean everyone on the planet would be giving Lex the big F.U. It would destroy the entire economy of the world. Even countries not effected would still be effected. He would be destroying most of America, Canada, and a huge chunk of Europe. You think anyone would be selling him anything with currency that would be devalued in a week? Once America and Canada and most of Europe was gone, the money he gave those guys would be worhtless paper, and they know it. NO they would not. No one would be doing **** but sending planes and nukles over to blow his stupid ass up and try to stop the thing from growing any more.

 

[charl_huntress]

For the ones that hated/didnt like the movie/disappointed..my question is this..are you still buying the dvd when it comes out? if so..why? i'd like to see some discussion on this matter..

I'm buying the collection because it has it all and it's not as expensive as I thought, and I want the Donner cut.

I will support Superman...probably under any circumstance. But, I'm not going to have three or four copies of anything. It's one and that's it.

 

[Super Kal]

well, I couldn't buy the DVD even if I wanted to, so my opinion is rather moot at the moment...

 

[charl_huntress]

Would you buy something if you could Kakarot?

 

[SentinelMind]

Exactly, though i like the Spiderman movies, there is hardly any intellegence in them and EVERYTHING is explained. Sometimes, its best just to let the audience fill in the blanks. Some people i know who saw it havent seen the Donner movies for 20 years, yet they still loved SR.

Spider-Man 2 had more heart, soul, and intelligence in one scene than Superman Returns did in the entire movie. Plot holes, unresolved plot points, uninspiring lead actor, anticlimatic conflicts, poor character motivation and lack of development, overstuffed symbolism just for the hell of it, .....what did Superman Returns have than a decent/good-acted Lex Luthor? Nothing but Reeve nostalgia. Routh was out-acted by everyone in the entire movie....everyone....

Spider-Man 2 scene where Peter admits that he was at at a wrestling match to Aunt May was more gripping and intense than anything in Superman Returns. Superman Does Stuff is what the film should have been called.

 

[LadyVader]

When Superman gets beat up is that not an intense, nerve wracking scene? When he talks to his son at the end is that not an emotional scene?

Sheesh. What does it take?!

 

[The Kid]

Originality?

 

[LadyVader]

He never got beat up on screen before and he never had to talk to his son before. You can't get more original then that.