AVEITWITHJAMON said:
Well your definition of a superhero would be right Wesyeed, but Superman differs from that. He is a saviour, an example for us to follow, we shoudlnt depend on him like New York does on Spidey (as we saw in Spidey 2 when the crime rate went up 75% when he quit) or Gotham does on Batman, etc, etc. We should follow his example, and help others whether we know and love them or not. Superman is given the choice in the movie to help Lois or Metropolis as both are in immediate danger he chooses Metropolis. I'm not so sure any other hero would do the same in his position.
Also other heroes protect places they are from, grew in, and were born. Superman is not of our race or our world, yet chooses to protect our globe with his life, every day. This guy is practically a god and could rule our planet with ease, but instead chooses to guide us to be a better race, 'a great people' and he is guided to that role by two sets of very noble and very admirable parents.
I wouldn't necessarily agree Superman is supposed to be an example to follow. It's rather difficult for a normal human to be able to follow in the footsteps of someone who can fly, has heat vision, super-strength etc. Also, the movie did not portray his behaviour as particularly exemplary - leaving without telling Lois, spying on her and Richard, etc... all those things have been questioned on here by many as making the character seem unlikeable.
If the Messiah symbolism worked for you and made you like the movie more, then so be it. But I think Singer is up to his usual tricks here of reinterpreting iconic characters into something they never were.
With the Spider-Man and Batman movies, the characters are created first, to be accurate, respectful representations ... with one or two changes. Then a story and a world is built around them.
Singer works in the opposite way. He builds worlds in which superheroes may exist but he has to force his heroes to behave in certain ways to fit the world he has created.
Directors should be very wary of bringing highly personal visions to movies. Such retellings, reimaginings and reinterpretations can be interesting but they also risk making characters into something entirely different.
Singer and his writers first need to study exactly who Superman (or the X-Men) are, and THEN build the story and the world in which they exist, not create the world and force the characters into it. Bryan's a good storyteller but he is not telling the characters' stories in the way they are meant to be told.
Sam Raimi and Christopher Nolan, and also del Toro and Wachowskis, and Peter Jackson, never let their ego and their personal vision ride roughshod over the original material. The character comes first, not the director. In Singer's X-Men movies and in Superman, the characters behave in an out-of-character way in order to fit his ideas. In X3, they had to continue with Bryan's world and it got even worse when Fox mandates and actor availabilities dictated what would happen to certain characters. (like Anna Paquin suddenly deciding to do 'Margaret' and having to be surgically removed from most of the script). But Bryan had created his vision first and forced Storm, Rogue, Sabretooth and others to fit into it, rather than first looking closely at who Storm actually is, who Rogue actually is.
I know you are more accepting because, as you said, you haven't read Superman comics. If you had, you might find the movie left a very strange taste in your mouth.
I'm tired of directors hitting us over the head with their visions. The original material has enough vision of its own.
t: By the way, "I LOVE SPEED RACER!!!! I grew up on that series. What great news that the Wach. bros are directing. I'm positive that they will capture the sprirt of that series W/O the cheese.
