bosef982
Superhero
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2003
- Messages
- 6,211
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I'm going to address a few things I'm reading on here concerning Superman Returns relationship to Superman: The Movie and Superman II, and also concerns over how the plot points function to those movies and, if at all, how they mimic, copy, or what not from those movie's overall scripts.
Someone wrote that Singer was damned the day he made this movie. I agree. Superman is so universal to interpret the character succinctly and to everyone's satisifaction (or even a great deal of everyone's) is entirely impossible. The origin tale, as some want, is completely ridiculous. Between Smallville and Superman: The Movie, it is true that re-telling Superman's tell would prove redundant, unneccessary, and simply bad storytelling.
Superman functions as a figure, a collective archetype that resonates with everyone and whom with everyone's familiar. Superman: The Movie was a patently successful realization of Superman as a character, imbuing the mythology with higher, more serious Judeo-Christian archetypes and messages that solidified Superman's reputation as the Superhero Savior. Singer recognizes this, and just as it'd make no sense for someone to re-film Star Wars: The New Hope, it'd make no sense for Singer to retread ground covered in a film seen by almost anyone, or easily obtained should someone need to see it.
Even if the re-telling functioned as a sort of Mark Waid Birthright, it'd be unfullfilling. It'd have tones of been there, done that. Smallville is Birthright in many respects, and to see it again transfered to the screen is, as my point on this argument are, redundant. It's unneccessary. It's known.
But then people say Singer has no vision, no originality b/c he's linked this film to those. Why not? Why not use what Superman: The Movie as your template, especially if it does contain many successful elements. Superman II even contains great elements that can be harness for future use. Simply linking your films to previous versions is not a lack of originality, not totally redoing the established template is HUMILITY and respect, and in some ways requires much more creativity since you must now make that character function within THAT world, and not one where the convienece of total creation is at your fingertips.
In any respect, Superman Returns is already showing massive qualities of Singer's own directorial vision improving upon Donner's designs. Metropolis is redefined, a art-deco fantasty towering on the East Coast, timeless and austere. Superman looks fantastic, with a more alien atmosphere being brought to him in his space clothing and even his new costume. Not to mention, Superman's exploration of his homeworld is something altogether abandoned in SUperman II, even with Zod and them arriving. Superman II focuses on Superman forgoing his heritage for human love. Singer's pulling away from that, focusing on Superman and his heritage and Superman wanting to know where he's from. This alreayd insinuates a new vision that is much more emotional than things seen before.
Luthor is not the Donner/Lester Luthor. This has already been established. Anyone stating the otherwise is simply just closing their eyes. From stabbing Superman viciously, to his gang plummelling Superman, to his schemes and now his wealth, this is a much more viewable, arrogant, and psychotic Luthor than ever before. The mixture of humor, rage, jealously, and insanity should make Luthor a true well-rounded character, something never gotten from Hackman's version.
But what of Luthor's plan? So he's using Kryptonian technology to create a gigantic continent. Sounds like Superman: The Movie? In ways, yes. However, what villian doesn't always sound the same. Magneto is always attempting to destroy humanity and gain mutant rights. Green Goblin is always attempting to destroy Spider-Man. Joker is psychoticlly trying to test Batman, Two-Face as well, Poison Ivy the environmentalist. That's because these people are characters and these characters have goals and dreams. Luthor is world-domination, however now its mixed up with this rabid hatred for Superman and this ultra-pretenious humanist aspect.
However, in another thread, I already explored why Luthor wanting land is a viable and realistic aim for any meglomaniac and any character who should represent the base desires of humanity, as Luthor should contrast and juxtapose Superman's ultra-idealistic and moralistic take on what humanity should be. For more on that, find my Luthor, Land, and Evil thread.
Either way, Superman Returns is already showing an enormous amount of vision and origianlity -- and I'm not even touching the Lois Lane relationship dynamic, which is the most controversial and most unique and original aspect of the film. It is funny how the same people who deride the film's alleged triteness also critique Singer's approach to Lois/Superman/Richard/kid.
That right there is an inherent example of how people force Singer into a corner. In fact, they build the corner, the house, shove Singer in that house, and then push him into the corner.
Someone wrote that Singer was damned the day he made this movie. I agree. Superman is so universal to interpret the character succinctly and to everyone's satisifaction (or even a great deal of everyone's) is entirely impossible. The origin tale, as some want, is completely ridiculous. Between Smallville and Superman: The Movie, it is true that re-telling Superman's tell would prove redundant, unneccessary, and simply bad storytelling.
Superman functions as a figure, a collective archetype that resonates with everyone and whom with everyone's familiar. Superman: The Movie was a patently successful realization of Superman as a character, imbuing the mythology with higher, more serious Judeo-Christian archetypes and messages that solidified Superman's reputation as the Superhero Savior. Singer recognizes this, and just as it'd make no sense for someone to re-film Star Wars: The New Hope, it'd make no sense for Singer to retread ground covered in a film seen by almost anyone, or easily obtained should someone need to see it.
Even if the re-telling functioned as a sort of Mark Waid Birthright, it'd be unfullfilling. It'd have tones of been there, done that. Smallville is Birthright in many respects, and to see it again transfered to the screen is, as my point on this argument are, redundant. It's unneccessary. It's known.
But then people say Singer has no vision, no originality b/c he's linked this film to those. Why not? Why not use what Superman: The Movie as your template, especially if it does contain many successful elements. Superman II even contains great elements that can be harness for future use. Simply linking your films to previous versions is not a lack of originality, not totally redoing the established template is HUMILITY and respect, and in some ways requires much more creativity since you must now make that character function within THAT world, and not one where the convienece of total creation is at your fingertips.
In any respect, Superman Returns is already showing massive qualities of Singer's own directorial vision improving upon Donner's designs. Metropolis is redefined, a art-deco fantasty towering on the East Coast, timeless and austere. Superman looks fantastic, with a more alien atmosphere being brought to him in his space clothing and even his new costume. Not to mention, Superman's exploration of his homeworld is something altogether abandoned in SUperman II, even with Zod and them arriving. Superman II focuses on Superman forgoing his heritage for human love. Singer's pulling away from that, focusing on Superman and his heritage and Superman wanting to know where he's from. This alreayd insinuates a new vision that is much more emotional than things seen before.
Luthor is not the Donner/Lester Luthor. This has already been established. Anyone stating the otherwise is simply just closing their eyes. From stabbing Superman viciously, to his gang plummelling Superman, to his schemes and now his wealth, this is a much more viewable, arrogant, and psychotic Luthor than ever before. The mixture of humor, rage, jealously, and insanity should make Luthor a true well-rounded character, something never gotten from Hackman's version.
But what of Luthor's plan? So he's using Kryptonian technology to create a gigantic continent. Sounds like Superman: The Movie? In ways, yes. However, what villian doesn't always sound the same. Magneto is always attempting to destroy humanity and gain mutant rights. Green Goblin is always attempting to destroy Spider-Man. Joker is psychoticlly trying to test Batman, Two-Face as well, Poison Ivy the environmentalist. That's because these people are characters and these characters have goals and dreams. Luthor is world-domination, however now its mixed up with this rabid hatred for Superman and this ultra-pretenious humanist aspect.
However, in another thread, I already explored why Luthor wanting land is a viable and realistic aim for any meglomaniac and any character who should represent the base desires of humanity, as Luthor should contrast and juxtapose Superman's ultra-idealistic and moralistic take on what humanity should be. For more on that, find my Luthor, Land, and Evil thread.
Either way, Superman Returns is already showing an enormous amount of vision and origianlity -- and I'm not even touching the Lois Lane relationship dynamic, which is the most controversial and most unique and original aspect of the film. It is funny how the same people who deride the film's alleged triteness also critique Singer's approach to Lois/Superman/Richard/kid.
That right there is an inherent example of how people force Singer into a corner. In fact, they build the corner, the house, shove Singer in that house, and then push him into the corner.
Not for me though... Through my browser, I just see Jason's head on a pink background. I orignally made it flash all sorts of colors as was suggested by Mentok, but when I uploaded it, it wasn't animated anymore.
