Superman Returns Superman Returns:Final Thoughts

[mego joe]

What you wrote about Superman is absolutely correct, there's no debating it. I believe however that Singer was trying to bring a god-like being who many envision or believe to be perfect, down to a more human level (at least on an emotional or character level)...complete with all the frailties, flaws and short-comings. To that extent he definitely succeeded, obviously to the chagrin of many people.

We live in a darker period of time than when the original Superman came out and that is reflected in this film. Could it have been done differently? Absolutely. Could it have been better? Hind sight is 20/20 so again, absolutely. I for one enjoyed seeing the character on screen again, regardless of the directors interpretation. I don't want a shoot'em up, all action no content film and in this respect, Singer's version satisfied that.

Regardless of who directs it next or what is ultimately decided on where to take the character, I look forward to the next film coming out.

However, I think the 'content' of the film was all wrong for the SUperman character. That is why I disliked it. If it had just been not the greatest, but got the character right, then I wouldn't have cared so much, ex. SUperman IV. JUst seeing SUperman on screen was not enough for me, because he only seemed like Superman from a superficial standpoint, and he was very un-SUperman like when it came down to the content, esp. the content of the character.

I think humanizing him is a great idea, but I think SInger chose the wrong details to illustrate this humanization. SO much so that the essence of the character is lost, and ultimately fails as a SUperman movie. It could easily be some other super powered character's story, becasue the inherent compassion and thoughtfulness of SUperman is turned around when it comes to his relationship with Lois.

Unfortunately, as long as SInger is involved, he will undoubtedly keep the sequels in this same movie universe. This world with this jerk SUperman just holds no interest for me. SUperman is not a character who is based on overcoming his flaws or his inability to relate to people, but rather an example of the best of people in both his public and private life. An example that shows what good any single person can contribute when they use their abilities in a positive and responsible way. SUperman's story is not a story of redemption, it is a story of being a role models based in traditional ethics and morality.

 

[afan]

She couldn't have waited too long in SR, b/c Richard thinks that Jason is his biological son. For him to think that, LOis had to have sex w/ both Superman and Richard within a two week period. Logically, she shouldn't even think that SUperman won't be back anyday, she can't have already figured out he's just gone. This is another area that really needs some details to fully explore and explain the story. MOre vagueness.

Points that are dead on target.

Which also speaks to the oft argued(tho absent from SR)rationale to defend the lack of Superman's announcement to the world re. his departure:
"If Superman announced his interstellar voyage to the world, crime would have a field day"

The only way Lois can come off well regarding her intimacy with Richard is if she knew or had been convinced that Superman was gone, quite possibly if not certainly, forever. Any other scenario cheapens the character. Clearly tho in the timeline evidence presented( Jason's age and Superman's absence )in SR the relationship with Richard occurred shortly after Superman left. So Lois would need to do the math and very very quickly conclude that Superman was gone.

So to those who espouse the crime spree scenario. Isn't it also reasonable to expect that crime would also, just as Lois did, in a short period of time, conclude that Superman was gone. The lack of or inclusion of an announcement would produce the same result as far as crime is concerned: A realization within weeks that Superman is gone.
Now if one considers the effect that the lack of a public announcement has on the preparedness of law enforcement, Red Cross, etc. for Superman's absence; the Man of Steel comes off looking very callous indeed.

 

[X Knight]

very good points, mego joe and afan.

y'know, I just watched the Donner Cut of S2. Yes, it's not perfect, the special effects look silly compared to today's standard, and the content is not the greatest ( FOS toilet flush, turning back the world, etc. ). But, overall, I enjoyed watching it more than SR.

Why?

Because I felt like I was watching Superman. The donner movies, at the very least, captured that essence, that spirit of Superman more than SR did. And the new footage of Supes conversing with Jor-el had more heartfelt emotion than, really, any of the scenes in SR.

Yes, Superman in S2 acted selfishly and made a mistake. But, in S2 ( Donner's especially ), you SEE AND FEEL that Supes realizes his error, that he regrets his error, and that he must pay a terrible price for his error. It was more than simply saying "I know" or "I'm sorry" or "I'm always around."

 

[afan]

^Couldn't agree more Super-bats, tho "turning back the world" never really bothered me in either of it's presentations(STM or the planned ending for the Donner two film adventure).

 

[X Knight]

i mean, I certainly don't hold the Donner movies on a pedastal. they're not the be all, end all. That's why I would have preferred a restart, not a vague continuation of that universe.

But, for me, I just felt Donner and co. "got" the character better than Singer and co.

In fact, if you listen to their commentary, Donner ( and his partner ) were saying that they actually were thinking about ideas for Supes 3 and 4. And, they were excited because they had so much history.........cough....comic books.....cough........to draw upon.

that's why alot of us, i think, felt "cheated" and let down by Singer, because now we have even MORE history to draw upon. and yet, Singer just seemed to give us more of the same......

 

[afan]

It's the vague continuation that is ruinous.
The Donner universe could be literally continued without any problems whatsoever, and still deliver fresh Adventures of Superman.

 

[Zen Ith]

But, for me, I just felt Donner and co. "got" the character better than Singer and co.

In fact, if you listen to their commentary, Donner ( and his partner ) were saying that they actually were thinking about ideas for Supes 3 and 4. And, they were excited because they had so much history.........cough....comic books.....cough........to draw upon.

that's why alot of us, i think, felt "cheated" and let down by Singer, because now we have even MORE history to draw upon. and yet, Singer just seemed to give us more of the same......

I disagree entirely.

Singer created the story in Superman Returns to re-assess why Superman does what he does, and make a point on how he is viewed in today's world, this point was seen in KINGDOM COME. To do this, he followed the same plot structure of Donner's Superman: The Movie to emphasise a new beginning for Superman, also it is for the character of Jason, whose life mirrors Superman's (adopted by earth parents, but actually son of a kryptonian, and Superman must sacrifice Jason for his own good).

The trouble was, Singer's view of the story kept changing. So we got a film that wasn't like Kingdom Come at all, was very close to Superman: The Movie and didn't exactly re-assess the character. It was still a respectable Superman movie, but the film Singer had in mind when he started was much better IMO.

 

[X Knight]

i agree with you, zen, to a point. In that, perhaps Singer's original ideas, what he had on paper or what he had in his mind, were great. It's just the way they were EXECUTED ON SCREEN. It's like they had these great ideas or themes they wanted to explore......they just never explored them to the fullest extent.

It's like they were just "going through the motions." like they announced they are going to touch upon these themes, but never get around to fully explaining or exploring them....

that's why, I feel, SR felt shallow and hollow. We were left with sort of the structure or skeleton of the story, but were never presented the heart or core of the story.

so, for me, SR was a bit like the Hulk. great / interesting ideas on paper, just poor ( or less than stellar ) execution on screen. Consequently, the final film presented to the audience suffers.....

 

[rogue trooper]

I thought the film delivered what I expected. It captured the spirit of the Superman mythology very well. Brandon Routh is The Man of Steel!!!

 

[dark_b]

I disagree entirely.

Singer created the story in Superman Returns to re-assess why Superman does what he does, and make a point on how he is viewed in today's world, this point was seen in KINGDOM COME. To do this, he followed the same plot structure of Donner's Superman: The Movie to emphasise a new beginning for Superman, also it is for the character of Jason, whose life mirrors Superman's (adopted by earth parents, but actually son of a kryptonian, and Superman must sacrifice Jason for his own good).

The trouble was, Singer's view of the story kept changing. So we got a film that wasn't like Kingdom Come at all, was very close to Superman: The Movie and didn't exactly re-assess the character. It was still a respectable Superman movie, but the film Singer had in mind when he started was much better IMO.

when singer said that what they do is change somethings while filming. the second i found this out i knew something bad will happen. but i really didnt expect that they will change so much.

how can you even change the story while filming ?

 

[mego joe]

I disagree entirely.

Singer created the story in Superman Returns to re-assess why Superman does what he does, and make a point on how he is viewed in today's world, this point was seen in KINGDOM COME. To do this, he followed the same plot structure of Donner's Superman: The Movie to emphasise a new beginning for Superman, also it is for the character of Jason, whose life mirrors Superman's (adopted by earth parents, but actually son of a kryptonian, and Superman must sacrifice Jason for his own good).

The trouble was, Singer's view of the story kept changing. So we got a film that wasn't like Kingdom Come at all, was very close to Superman: The Movie and didn't exactly re-assess the character. It was still a respectable Superman movie, but the film Singer had in mind when he started was much better IMO.

About Jason, I don't think it is really a good parallel between him and Kal-El as a baby.

Kal-El is sent off in a rocket as the only means of saving his life.

Superman has to let Richard and Lois raise his son b/c he's already screwed up this kid's life enough.

Kal-El's situation was brought about by natural dissaster.

Jason's situation was brought about by irresponsible and immature behvior on the part of his biological father, SUpreman.

If you look at the detail the differences become clear. You have to look at the context for each situation to see what is really going on. I think this parallel that Singer is going for is forced and not really strong enough to be engaging.

Does anyone know why Singer felt compelled to introduce the Jason character at all? Or have him be SUperman's biological son?

WHat has SInger said about this?

 

[mego joe]

I thought the film delivered what I expected. It captured the spirit of the Superman mythology very well. Brandon Routh is The Man of Steel!!!

So, in all sincerity, I have a question for you.

How does SUperman leaving LOis in the middle of a relationship, one that is so intimate that it involves sex, without saying a word fit in with the SUperman mythology.

How does SUperman becoming the father of a child he will not be able to raise as his own fit into the Superman mythology.

Just asking.

 

[X Knight]

hey mego joe, I agree with everything you said.

I think the theme that Singer was trying to go for was that Superman spent 5+ years in space, futiley searching for others of his kind. Ironically, he did have someone of his own kind.....right here on Earth......Jason. So, in the beginning Superman failed to find others like him out in space, but, at the end of the film, he finally found someone like him on Earth in Jason.

Now, on paper on in Singer's mind, that might sound interesting....it might sound touching.......but ON SCREEN, the way they presented it in the final cut, it just didn't work as effectively.

Making Superman the father of, essentially, an illegitimate child ( out of wedlock, too ) plus the fact that Lois is already with Richard and there's a fairly stable family unit.........it just tarnishes the purity of Superman's moral character.....making him come across as irresponsible in his relationships and a homewrecker...........

 

[rogue trooper]

So, in all sincerity, I have a question for you.

How does SUperman leaving LOis in the middle of a relationship, one that is so intimate that it involves sex, without saying a word fit in with the SUperman mythology.

How does SUperman becoming the father of a child he will not be able to raise as his own fit into the Superman mythology.

Just asking.

1. I didn't say the film didn't have faults, and this plothole is of the very few faults I found. The ups outdo the lows.

2. We'll just have to wait for "The Man of Steel" to see about that.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Apparently some of these aspects,the relationship with Lois and Superman just leaving is something that does not fit into the Superman story.But i do think it had to fit,in order to explain the time Superman away away.Not the movie itself,but a excuse in the story.

I think the whole aspect of a child is not really for the whole ideal or mantle of Superman,just a aspect of drama..to make Superman more down to earth for this generation.

 

[Zen Ith]

About Jason, I don't think it is really a good parallel between him and Kal-El as a baby.

Kal-El is sent off in a rocket as the only means of saving his life.

Superman has to let Richard and Lois raise his son b/c he's already screwed up this kid's life enough.

Kal-El's situation was brought about by natural dissaster.

Jason's situation was brought about by irresponsible and immature behvior on the part of his biological father, SUpreman.

If you look at the detail the differences become clear. You have to look at the context for each situation to see what is really going on. I think this parallel that Singer is going for is forced and not really strong enough to be engaging.

Well, that's your opinion.

Does anyone know why Singer felt compelled to introduce the Jason character at all? Or have him be SUperman's biological son?

WHat has SInger said about this?

Obviously Singer just had the idea and wanted to tell the story.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Does anyone know why Singer felt compelled to introduce the Jason character at all? Or have him be SUperman's biological son?

WHat has SInger said about this?

The most difficult challenge, he(Singer) admits, was finding the obstacle that would be impossible for Superman to overcome: the passage of time and change. According to Singer, Lois' son Jason is a permanent reminder of this.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_Returns

 

[X Knight]

yah....and making Jason Superman's son kind of undercuts that effect.

Why? Because since Jason is Superman's ( and Lois' ) son, that means inevitably they're going to get back together......

If Singer had done what he was telling us pre movie release ( Jason is Richard's and Lois' ), then that would be more challenging for Superman.

For example, let's say I really loved this girl, but for whatever reason, we went out separate ways. Now, many years later, I run into her again. Naturally, if I still have feelings for her, then I may want to rekindle our relationship....

But, if she is already with another man, then I've got a problem. AND, IF SHE'S GOT A KID WITH SAID MAN, then I really have a problem. If I were a self-respecting guy ( which I try to be ), then I would concede that I have LOST her and back off. Not only has she found another love, but now she has a kid with him and is raising a family.

IOW, there's really no ( honorable ) chance I can get her back, and seeing her with Child and Husband would serve as a constant "reminder" of what might have been ( wishing I was in the other guys place ).

So, if Jason was really Richard's and Lois' son, then Superman would know that he can never get Lois back ( unless he wants to play homewrecker ). THAT would serve as a constant reminder of the Time he lost.......

 

[FlawlessVictory]

How does SUperman becoming the father of a child he will not be able to raise as his own fit into the Superman mythology.

So, if Jason was really Richard's and Lois' son, then Superman would know that he can never get Lois back ( unless he wants to play homewrecker ). THAT would serve as a constant reminder of the Time he lost.......

 

[lexlives]

However, I think the 'content' of the film was all wrong for the SUperman character. That is why I disliked it. If it had just been not the greatest, but got the character right, then I wouldn't have cared so much, ex. SUperman IV. JUst seeing SUperman on screen was not enough for me, because he only seemed like Superman from a superficial standpoint, and he was very un-SUperman like when it came down to the content, esp. the content of the character.

I think humanizing him is a great idea, but I think SInger chose the wrong details to illustrate this humanization. SO much so that the essence of the character is lost, and ultimately fails as a SUperman movie. It could easily be some other super powered character's story, becasue the inherent compassion and thoughtfulness of SUperman is turned around when it comes to his relationship with Lois.

Unfortunately, as long as SInger is involved, he will undoubtedly keep the sequels in this same movie universe. This world with this jerk SUperman just holds no interest for me. SUperman is not a character who is based on overcoming his flaws or his inability to relate to people, but rather an example of the best of people in both his public and private life. An example that shows what good any single person can contribute when they use their abilities in a positive and responsible way. SUperman's story is not a story of redemption, it is a story of being a role models based in traditional ethics and morality.

Exactly!! The kid was just a manifestation of a bigger problem - the total mis-characterization of Superman. As radical and maybe moreso than anything Peters had planned.

 

[lexlives]

yah....and making Jason Superman's son kind of undercuts that effect.

Why? Because since Jason is Superman's ( and Lois' ) son, that means inevitably they're going to get back together......

If Singer had done what he was telling us pre movie release ( Jason is Richard's and Lois' ), then that would be more challenging for Superman.

For example, let's say I really loved this girl, but for whatever reason, we went out separate ways. Now, many years later, I run into her again. Naturally, if I still have feelings for her, then I may want to rekindle our relationship....

But, if she is already with another man, then I've got a problem. AND, IF SHE'S GOT A KID WITH SAID MAN, then I really have a problem. If I were a self-respecting guy ( which I try to be ), then I would concede that I have LOST her and back off. Not only has she found another love, but now she has a kid with him and is raising a family.

IOW, there's really no ( honorable ) chance I can get her back, and seeing her with Child and Husband would serve as a constant "reminder" of what might have been ( wishing I was in the other guys place ).

So, if Jason was really Richard's and Lois' son, then Superman would know that he can never get Lois back ( unless he wants to play homewrecker ). THAT would serve as a constant reminder of the Time he lost.......

Creatively it more or less prevents Superman from being seriously involved with another woman. Say Lana. That would be a further step away from what we have known as the character up to Singer's continuity.

It shuts down so many possibilities and forces the story into a corner with Jason basically be the constant focus.

Lois and Clark should not at all be together till the final film of the planned trilogy. Its why Millar said ST felt more like the end of the franchise and not the start.

 

[X Knight]

right.....anytime you introduce a kid into a storyline, it automatically takes focus away from the main character ( in this case, Superman ). Now, we're probably MORE INTERESTED IN JASON!

How is he going to develop? What kind of powers will he have? How will he react to learning Superman is his father? Will we see hints that Jason will assume the mantle of his father? Does that mean Superman.....will retire....or........even DIE???

Introducing a kid almost seems like something they should do at the END of a series, not the BEGINNING movie, which is supposed to resurrect a dormant 20 year old franchise. Now, the sequels seem to be almost about the journey and growth of Jason......thus undercutting the focus on SUPERMAN!!

That being said, I guaranda**tee it, if we got anything remotely close to what Peters wanted, or Abram's, or Burton's, etc.......there would have been just as much ( if not more ) outrage. Those treatments blatantly bastardized the character and mythos. Singer just did it more subtely.......

 

[lexlives]

right.....anytime you introduce a kid into a storyline, it automatically takes focus away from the main character ( in this case, Superman ). Now, we're probably MORE INTERESTED IN JASON!

How is he going to develop? What kind of powers will he have? How will he react to learning Superman is his father? Will we see hints that Jason will assume the mantle of his father? Does that mean Superman.....will retire....or........even DIE???

Introducing a kid almost seems like something they should do at the END of a series, not the BEGINNING movie, which is supposed to resurrect a dormant 20 year old franchise. Now, the sequels seem to be almost about the journey and growth of Jason......thus undercutting the focus on SUPERMAN!!

That being said, I guaranda**tee it, if we got anything remotely close to what Peters wanted, or Abram's, or Burton's, etc.......there would have been just as much ( if not more ) outrage. Those treatments blatantly bastardized the character and mythos. Singer just did it more subtely.......

I get the impression Singer is more interested in the kid than Supes. Its that whole human mutant sort of thing.

Plus who knows if Singer's plan for the thrid film was indeed to have Superman die and introduce an X-Men like in a way new character to DC. The thought/possibility scares me - why I want no part of any Singer sequels. I don't trust him or his plans for the character.

 

[Showtime]

I would have loved to see these boards with Ty Zor, Kryptonian Lex, Black Suit, Nicolas Cage, Suit in a Can, Superman Driving a Car, Giant Spiders, Polar Bears...

Lex Lives would be opening threads titled...

Superman Lives but the Character Dies...or...Why Can't We Get A Director Like Bryan Singer...

 

[lexlives]

I would have loved to see these boards with Ty Zor, Homosexual Jimmy Olsen, Kryptonian Lex, Black Suit, Nicolas Cage, Suit in a Can, Superman Driving a Car, Giant Spiders, Polar Bears...

Lex Lives would be opening threads titled...

Superman Lives but the Character Dies...or...Why Can't We Get A Director Like Bryan Singer...

So guess you are saying it could have been worse? Faint praise if ever I heard it.

Forget spiders and bastard sons - just give us a real Superman film. Something I do not thing the current Singer team is capable of doing.