Spare-Flair
Sidekick
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,174
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Thinking about Superman Returns, I think back to the 1978 film and what made it great -> and as I said elsewhere, the greatness of Superman 1978 comes not from his anger after losing Lois, but from the spectacle, the adventure, the triumph, and indefatigable nature of the man in bright blue, red, and yellow who fights for truth, justice, and the American way without nary a moment of self-pity or self doubt. Even when the love of his life dies in his arms, he doesn't pity himself, he knows exactly what he has to do and he has all confidence in himself. Superman 1978 is an adventure in the same vein as Star Wars was in 1977. Pure fun, the victory of good over evil, the kind of stuff that makes a child excited and smile. The kind of stuff that burns into your mind for 20 years.
I remember that quote from a kid in the theatre "hallelujah, can we leave now?" that was in the theatre reactions thread for SR and I wonder if as adults, we ask for too much human drama and miss out on the childhood joy and sheer goodness of a Superman film. George Lucas said in 1977 that he made Star Wars (and incidentally Indiana Jones) because the 1970s was an era where films were considered illegitimate or unrealistic unless they dealt with life and emotions and drama in the real world in a realistic or gritty and moving way. It was the era of the anti-hero (think Dirty Harry) who (while unrealistic) was complex, macabre, and lived in an imperfect world.
Lucas wanted a film that people could feel good about again. Something like the Flash Gordon serials and comic book adventures from when he was a kid. Something that was just about good versus evil, a good swashbuckling tale.
Well Star Wars came out in 1977 and totally shocked the film industry and suddenly it was again "in" to make films that appealed to the inner child and the need for something pure and inspirational. A clean world with hope and somewhere where you could just sit back and have fun and be inspired. Superman 1978 actually owes a lot of it's financing to the success of Star Wars because they attached the first teaser trailers to Star Wars and excited audience reactions helped them keep funding the production of the movie.
In today's age, again Superheroes have to seem "real" to be legitimate and that's perfectly fine, but I think the trap that SR fell into was that it needed too strongly to hurt the Man of Steel and make him lose basically everything in his life to make him vulnerable and that really takes away the whole fun/swashbuckling clean world angle. Superman Returns seems like an ill-paced story that totally ignores the conflict central to it's purported premise (the drama of a world that nolonger needs Superman)...and instead creates a tale of domestic relationship problems and the quiet suffering of an alienated man who feels lost in the world. Hey, fantastic stuff for drama, but not fitting for an entire landmark Superhero film -especially not one treated with as much reverence and respect as Superman who deserves an epic tale to go along with the humanity of his story.
Bryan Singer said it himself, Superman Returns was intended as a loose sequel to the original Superman movies but it was also a "chick flick" and also "the most heterosexual movie he had made".
While Batman Begins was about a man's total transformation from nothing into a triumphant ideal after tragic loss. Superman Returns is a film about a man who had everything and more...who suffers disappointment, after disappointment, after disappointment, after loss, after loss. It's like watching a man suffer through a spiral of depression. Where is the fun? Where is the inspiration? Bryan Singer and his team of writers have a wonderful story of human drama but isn't it all a little too grey for Superman? Singer loves Superman 1978 but he's at heart a director for character drama and he excels at fleshing out human angst but forgets that as comic book characters, these are paragons of perfection.
Lois is the perfect romantic interest in her beauty and foil in her aggressiveness and wit. Clark Kent is the perfect small town boy in a big city, the kind who is just wholesome enough for Lois to fall in love with - not someone who has a chronic case of clumsiness and timidity. Even Christopher Reeve's as Clark was not being clumsy for the of clumsy, but doing it to keep Lois on the straight and narrow with his "you know Lois, that might not be a good idea, etc." advice. It's what made Clark lovable to Lois.
Unfortunately, what we have here is to much angst and moments of empty stares and moments of silence that seem to last half a minute too long as Superman watches Lois in self-pity not knowing how to fix his life. It's great for his character and his humanity, but this was a film that needed to be fun, to be epic, to be bright, and to be triumphant and inspirational. A lot of critics on Rotten Tomatoes give the film great reviews but also point out the lack of this essential element. Watching Superman Returns I'm reminded of the X-Men movies, where they always ended on a denoument of a kind of unresolved sadness. Here we get Superman nearly drowned, saved by a kid, and barely alive on a hospital bed. That's Singer's trademark but that's not Superman. Superman needs to save the world and smile and fly around in orbit into the setting sun to John William's overture. Not say a sad lingering goodbye of "I'm always around" and then fly off.
Spider-Man is human, the X-Men are human, making them suffer builds their character - but Superman is not human, he is an icon to look up to, someone to have an adventure with and trust that he will always be there to stand for truth, justice and the American way. A friend of mine said that SR's Superman stands for "truth, justice, and the right to be emo". He was joking but it makes sense on a certain level.
Now that Superman has returned, and he's gotten over all the things he lost, has found himself, and has quite a bit to look forward to, I certainly hope the next film is Superman triumphant, a man of steel, a man of tomorrow, for all seasons. Singer has to let the gray and darkness drain from the character and drain from the suit and everything that happened in the last half of Superman Returns. Superman triumphs through his own strength and ingenuity in both I and II. If Singer really wants to pay respects to the original films, he needs to put back some of that steely resolve and invulnerability and sheer confidence and teethy smile into the character and Reeve put into Superman. Superman only showed his emotional side once in 1978 - when Lois survives and he struggles desperately to hide his relief and sheer joy. Sometimes a little bit of something is more powerful than an entire movie full of angst. Hopefully SR: The Sequel will be more in the vein of the original Star Wars, just a tale of adventure with triumphant characters that burns a smile onto your face for decades to come.
A lot of people jumped on Ebert for his somewhat negative review but I think this is what he was saying. SR lacked the simple honest to goodness swashbuckling of Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and maybe even Pirates of the Caribbean that makes fantasy fun.
I remember that quote from a kid in the theatre "hallelujah, can we leave now?" that was in the theatre reactions thread for SR and I wonder if as adults, we ask for too much human drama and miss out on the childhood joy and sheer goodness of a Superman film. George Lucas said in 1977 that he made Star Wars (and incidentally Indiana Jones) because the 1970s was an era where films were considered illegitimate or unrealistic unless they dealt with life and emotions and drama in the real world in a realistic or gritty and moving way. It was the era of the anti-hero (think Dirty Harry) who (while unrealistic) was complex, macabre, and lived in an imperfect world.
Lucas wanted a film that people could feel good about again. Something like the Flash Gordon serials and comic book adventures from when he was a kid. Something that was just about good versus evil, a good swashbuckling tale.
Well Star Wars came out in 1977 and totally shocked the film industry and suddenly it was again "in" to make films that appealed to the inner child and the need for something pure and inspirational. A clean world with hope and somewhere where you could just sit back and have fun and be inspired. Superman 1978 actually owes a lot of it's financing to the success of Star Wars because they attached the first teaser trailers to Star Wars and excited audience reactions helped them keep funding the production of the movie.
In today's age, again Superheroes have to seem "real" to be legitimate and that's perfectly fine, but I think the trap that SR fell into was that it needed too strongly to hurt the Man of Steel and make him lose basically everything in his life to make him vulnerable and that really takes away the whole fun/swashbuckling clean world angle. Superman Returns seems like an ill-paced story that totally ignores the conflict central to it's purported premise (the drama of a world that nolonger needs Superman)...and instead creates a tale of domestic relationship problems and the quiet suffering of an alienated man who feels lost in the world. Hey, fantastic stuff for drama, but not fitting for an entire landmark Superhero film -especially not one treated with as much reverence and respect as Superman who deserves an epic tale to go along with the humanity of his story.
Bryan Singer said it himself, Superman Returns was intended as a loose sequel to the original Superman movies but it was also a "chick flick" and also "the most heterosexual movie he had made".
While Batman Begins was about a man's total transformation from nothing into a triumphant ideal after tragic loss. Superman Returns is a film about a man who had everything and more...who suffers disappointment, after disappointment, after disappointment, after loss, after loss. It's like watching a man suffer through a spiral of depression. Where is the fun? Where is the inspiration? Bryan Singer and his team of writers have a wonderful story of human drama but isn't it all a little too grey for Superman? Singer loves Superman 1978 but he's at heart a director for character drama and he excels at fleshing out human angst but forgets that as comic book characters, these are paragons of perfection.
Lois is the perfect romantic interest in her beauty and foil in her aggressiveness and wit. Clark Kent is the perfect small town boy in a big city, the kind who is just wholesome enough for Lois to fall in love with - not someone who has a chronic case of clumsiness and timidity. Even Christopher Reeve's as Clark was not being clumsy for the of clumsy, but doing it to keep Lois on the straight and narrow with his "you know Lois, that might not be a good idea, etc." advice. It's what made Clark lovable to Lois.
Unfortunately, what we have here is to much angst and moments of empty stares and moments of silence that seem to last half a minute too long as Superman watches Lois in self-pity not knowing how to fix his life. It's great for his character and his humanity, but this was a film that needed to be fun, to be epic, to be bright, and to be triumphant and inspirational. A lot of critics on Rotten Tomatoes give the film great reviews but also point out the lack of this essential element. Watching Superman Returns I'm reminded of the X-Men movies, where they always ended on a denoument of a kind of unresolved sadness. Here we get Superman nearly drowned, saved by a kid, and barely alive on a hospital bed. That's Singer's trademark but that's not Superman. Superman needs to save the world and smile and fly around in orbit into the setting sun to John William's overture. Not say a sad lingering goodbye of "I'm always around" and then fly off.
Spider-Man is human, the X-Men are human, making them suffer builds their character - but Superman is not human, he is an icon to look up to, someone to have an adventure with and trust that he will always be there to stand for truth, justice and the American way. A friend of mine said that SR's Superman stands for "truth, justice, and the right to be emo". He was joking but it makes sense on a certain level.
Now that Superman has returned, and he's gotten over all the things he lost, has found himself, and has quite a bit to look forward to, I certainly hope the next film is Superman triumphant, a man of steel, a man of tomorrow, for all seasons. Singer has to let the gray and darkness drain from the character and drain from the suit and everything that happened in the last half of Superman Returns. Superman triumphs through his own strength and ingenuity in both I and II. If Singer really wants to pay respects to the original films, he needs to put back some of that steely resolve and invulnerability and sheer confidence and teethy smile into the character and Reeve put into Superman. Superman only showed his emotional side once in 1978 - when Lois survives and he struggles desperately to hide his relief and sheer joy. Sometimes a little bit of something is more powerful than an entire movie full of angst. Hopefully SR: The Sequel will be more in the vein of the original Star Wars, just a tale of adventure with triumphant characters that burns a smile onto your face for decades to come.
A lot of people jumped on Ebert for his somewhat negative review but I think this is what he was saying. SR lacked the simple honest to goodness swashbuckling of Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and maybe even Pirates of the Caribbean that makes fantasy fun.
