Superman Returns Ratner talks Superman!

[skruloos]

I just wana see effin Captian Pike again from TOS, he was badass.

From what I've seen of Pike he was a bit boring. He was kind of like Riker in Season 1 TNG. But hey, we saw him in what? 2 episodes?

 

[Deadman666]

He seemed edgy, dark and angsty to me. He was alot like Archer was in season 3.

TOS would have been a completely different series if he remained.

 

[skruloos]

He seemed edgy, dark and angsty to me. He was alot like Archer was in season 3.

TOS would have been a completely different series if he remained.

You know, you're right now that I think about it. I just haven't seen The Cage in a while. It would have been nice to see what Pike was like. However, give him a different crew. I didn't like Spock in that one at all.

 

[Deadman666]

lol he smiled. That was priceless. I just assume he was very young in those days and didnt go through the process of purging all of his emotions completely yet.

 

[Hiruu]

Gotta disagree. Whereas SR respected the Superman character and kept him true to form, Abrams' script was ridiculous and crapped on everything that made the character great. Superman as "The One"? Gimme a break.

Hmmm.....and getting beat up by thugs is Superman???

 

[skruloos]

lol he smiled. That was priceless. I just assume he was very young in those days and didnt go through the process of purging all of his emotions completely yet.

I just think that they didn't settle on a dynamic for the characters yet. An angsty Pike and a sullen, emotionless Vulcan might have been a bit much. It's nice that they made the emotionless Spock to match the suave Kirk and the cantankerous McCoy. It was also good that they made the straightlaced Picard match the playful Riker and the innocent Data.

 

[thechubbysaint]

That Superman storyline sounded awful though. Glad he didn't make it. Not saying Singer was any better though.

 

[PowersOfMind]

I disagree. Where is this "smugness" you speak of?

I thought his points carried a lot of validity. Truth is, there is a somewhat "played out" stigma attached to the Superman franchise. Brett merely put it in perspective. X-Men--for the time being--has a more raw, fresh appeal that broader audiences can identify with. In other words, it's the concept of racial and social equality along with other principles that sells X-Men. It's bigger than any one director's prowess.

As far as Brett's treatment of X3: It wasn't perfect. But at least those characters finally got to do what the X-Men are beloved for: waging war. My instincts tell me that that would have never happened under Bryan's care...he always plays it too safe by heading for romanticized treatments.

And that's what he did with SR.

I didnt catch the smugness either.

As much as I like Singer I felt like he just made a more modernized version of the original Supes movie by Donner. There was nothing new. True that X-men does have a more fresh appeal and that did help the movies. Truly I beleve that if Ratner had more time and had not been so barred down by FOX he X3 would have not been good but great.

 

[The Guard]

Yup watching Martha Kent get violated, beautiful scene. Very respectful to the innocence of the character.

She doesn't get violated, she gets attacked and ALMOST violated. There's a huge difference, because what happens is, Clark KICKS THE LIVING **** OUT OF THE MAN WHO IS TRYING TO HURT HIS MOTHER. This was not an innocent Superman. And if you took off your blinders, you would see Superman is not MEANT to be an innocent character. Nor has he been, in the comics, for YEARS. You're talking about a character who used to take part in wars, has killed, has made some tough decisions constantly throughout this history. One of the most important points of Superman is that he can FACE the kind of darkness humans create and still come out pure of heart, and doing the right thing.

But you've gotta love those Puritan ideals.

Nope. It read in the same melodramatic stle.

It's a movie, or a "drama". And its based on a melodramatic mythology, so of course it's going to be melodramatic in places. But I digress. Some examples, please. And then, if you could, explain how SUPERMAN RETURNS, or for that matter, SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE doesn't go into melodrama in the same vein. Oh. It does.

"REMEMBER, SON! ALWAYS REMEMBER".

Actually, a popular complaint of SR is that it didn't explore enough exposition to understand Superman leaving.

I didn't say it was nothing but exposition, but there was quite a bit of exposition in the film.

"Where did you go?"
"To Krypton"

Not only exposition, but fairly worthless exposition, because the concept never gets touched on again. And speaking of...when did exposition become a bad thing? Abrams' SUPERMAN also "showed" plenty without just "telling".

I never said Superman's mythology has not been cheesy and melodramatic. I just don't prefer it in my films.

So you want Superman stories to be...unlike what has always made Superman mythology work in part. Well, THAT makes sense.

I asked you WHAT was cheesy and melodramatic, and why it was bad as it was presented in the script.

The whole set up of Ty-Zor, CIA Luthor, and everything else just felt overly contrived. You're free to disagree but I stand by my assessment.

So it was contrived. Most films are these days. SUPERMAN RETURNS is no exception, really. BATMAN BEGINS was pretty contrived, too. Did you enjoy that film?

Someone's fanfic? Like, say, combining one's feelings on adoption with another director's vision to reboot a franchise? Nah...no elements of fanfic there...

Abrams work to me felt immature and too comic-booky.

Which parts of it?

It was like a cartoon and had the subtlety of a cartoon.

How so? Which scenes?

As I said, it might have worked on screen and I would probably have enjoyed it just as I enjoyed Spider-man 2. However, my enjoyment of Spider-man 2 still doesn't change the fact that I personally felt the script for the film was shallow and overly melodramatic.

That's SPIDER-MAN 2, which has girls in wedding dresses and completely pointless plot devices to breed "emotion". Abrams SUPERMAN had none of this type of thing. It bred intrigue. It's "emotion" came from perfectly acceptable moments that flowed from a cohesive story (At least as much as SUPERMAN RETURNS). If you can have Superman risking his life to save the world in SUPERMAN RETURNS to be emotional, why can't you have Superman risking his life to save Lois Lane in Abrams version?)

Superman and Lois's relationship, for instance, was fairly subtle, fairly realistic, and very well done. At least as much so as it was in SUPERMAN RETURNS.

What buzzwords? Melodramatic? Contrived? Over-expositive? These are normal terms you would use to describe script elements.

Yes...but you aren't describing any script elements. You're simply using the words, and when I ask you to clarify, you're simply using more buzz words. "Trite" means ****-all to me if you can't tell me what was trite, and why it's any different than say, a similar moment in SUPERMAN RETURNS.

I mean, I can say that SUPERMAN RETURNS was "shallow and pedantic", but unless I can point out WHY, my argument makes no sense.

Gotta disagree. Whereas SR respected the Superman character and kept him true to form, Abrams' script was ridiculous and crapped on everything that made the character great.

Hold on, "the Superman character" leaves Earth for five years and has children? When has this ever happened? Singer...did just what Abrams did..something new and relevant that fits into a basic Superman mythology.

Examples of things that crapped on everything that made the character great, please.

Superman as "The One"? Gimme a break.

Why is this such a bad thing? Oh. I forgot. "New" equals "bad".

 

[Frodo]

It wasn't that bad an idea, and it's an idea that went bye-bye by a later drat.



So? This version of Luthor was well written, and kicked the crap out of "Luthor the shyster" on pretty much every level. Later drafts had him as the head of LexCorp, with contacts with the Kryptonians. HMM...sounds almost like the comics...



Uh...no. Because SUPERMAN had CHARACTERIZATION and some actual GOOD dialogue, and mostly took place on Earth. Or have interstellar war movies never been made except for STAR WARS?



It did, however, undero a freaking Civil War, and his people were enslaved. And Krypton was clearly going to explode in a later film, but first Superman would become AWARE of it and realize just what being the last of his kind MEANT, which would have made a VERY powerful arc.



So? Just another connection to Superman as a Christ Figure. And classic mythology/hero quest stuff.



Who was about NINE TIMES COOLER THAN ZOD EVER WAS. Ever.

People always remember the BAD aspects, never the GOOD, of which there was quite a bit.

I personally didn't like the aspects mentioned and for me out weighed the good . I follow LOST religiously, but I thought the idea's Abrams had were a bit far out for Superman myths.

Singer gave Lois a child out of wedlock, which I wasn't crazy about ,but I still preferred it to Abrams Superman script. I see he was trying to do something different . I just didn't like it .

 

[Frodo]

I just wana see effin Captian Pike again from TOS, he was badass.

Maybe Pike could be the Captian with Kirk and Spock as the crew . It'd be a bit of a different spin . I think i'd be cool if Pike turned out to be someone the young Kirk looked up to .

 

[Lighthouse]

GAHHH!!!!! Enough with the Star Trek. Go here.....
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=166

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

Hmmm.....and getting beat up by thugs is Superman???

Considering that Superman becomes extremely vulnerable and DEFENSELESS towards Kryptonite, yes it was.

 

[Lighthouse]

Considering that Superman becomes extremely vulnerable and DEFENSELESS towards Kryptonite, yes it was.

But is still able to lift an entire continent with kryptonite in front of his face.



Sorry, I shouldn't even start this battle again.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

But is still able to lift an entire continent with kryptonite in front of his face.



Sorry, I shouldn't even start this battle again.

You realize the bottom is covered in mantle, right? It isn't until the Kryptonite breaks through the mantle that he begins to weaken. By then, he's already got the thing in space.

And then he almost dies.

 

[superpslanc]

I barely post here, but my hatred of Ratner wouldn't let this go. Ratner said the idea for X3 was good and the idea of bringing Suerman was not. The IDEA for X3 was good, but the movie was not. Singer made two good X-Men movies and a good Superman movie. Bottom line: Singer makes better movies than Ratner. I absolutly think I would have hated Ratner's Superman. I'm out!

 

[logansoldcigar]

unless the mantle was covered in lead, i dont see how that would have made a difference, when you think of the quantity of Kryptonite there was..but thats distracted me.

Im interested in this:

People have criticised Abrams script cos in it, krypton never blew up. well, if it blew up in Superman Returns, how would he have been able to go and have a look?

 

[dark_b]

unless the mantle was covered in lead, i dont see how that would have made a difference, when you think of the quantity of Kryptonite there was..but thats distracted me.

Im interested in this:

People have criticised Abrams script cos in it, krypton never blew up. well, if it blew up in Superman Returns, how would he have been able to go and have a look?

pieces of planet krypton?

 

[logansoldcigar]

surely they wouldnt have hung around the same spot for the thousands of years between the end of krypton and the start of SR? (and hes only been gone 5 yrs. 2 1/2 there, 2 1/2 back, especially with no sun to hold them in place.

 

[nogster]

You realize the bottom is covered in mantle, right? It isn't until the Kryptonite breaks through the mantle that he begins to weaken. By then, he's already got the thing in space.

And then he almost dies.

your realize that he HAD A SHARD OF KRYPTONITE STILL INSIDE HIM!.
there is no defending this contradiction.

 

[Hiruu]

your realize that he HAD A SHARD OF KRYPTONITE STILL INSIDE HIM!.
there is no defending this contradiction.

I was going to point this little fact out...how could have have regained his strengh, when he had a bigger-than-bullet size chard of Kyrptonite stuck in him fro mthe Jesus Christ stab?

Anyway, back to the topic's article...Ratner maybe a bit full of himself, but I doubt he's very different from any other young hot directors out there, but he considered Harry a friend from WAY before either one of them had $h!t, and so I don't think it's very surprising that he wanted him on as a consultant. The gig was for someone, with deep knowledge of Superman lore...uhmmm...don't know that there's a PHD from Yale in that, so why not a guy you considered a friend. Also, let's keep the timeframe in perspective here...we may all KNOW NOW that Harry is a disgusting piece of $h!t, but back then, Ain't it cool was the "it" spot for cool movie news, and it just got the fat troll's head...now, he's nothing more then a side-show freak.

 

[dark_b]

your realize that he HAD A SHARD OF KRYPTONITE STILL INSIDE HIM!.
there is no defending this contradiction.

in singer superman universe a little piece of kryptonite doesnt weaken him that much.

 

[JokerNick]

JJ Abrams script was complete and udder trash.....

 

[JokerNick]

I was going to point this little fact out...how could have have regained his strengh, when he had a bigger-than-bullet size chard of Kyrptonite stuck in him fro mthe Jesus Christ stab?

Anyway, back to the topic's article...Ratner maybe a bit full of himself, but I doubt he's very different from any other young hot directors out there, but he considered Harry a friend from WAY before either one of them had $h!t, and so I don't think it's very surprising that he wanted him on as a consultant. The gig was for someone, with deep knowledge of Superman lore...uhmmm...don't know that there's a PHD from Yale in that, so why not a guy you considered a friend. Also, let's keep the timeframe in perspective here...we may all KNOW NOW that Harry is a disgusting piece of $h!t, but back then, Ain't it cool was the "it" spot for cool movie news, and it just got the fat troll's head...now, he's nothing more then a side-show freak.

Ratner is full of himself.... x-men is not his child, he, in the words of Jurassic Park, stood a top the shoulders of genesius.... X3 did good, not because it was a good movie (worst movie I saw all year), because it was the sequel to X2.....

Ratner can go **** himself....

 

[Lighthouse]

You realize the bottom is covered in mantle, right? It isn't until the Kryptonite breaks through the mantle that he begins to weaken. By then, he's already got the thing in space.

And then he almost dies.

Still doesn't work.