Superman Returns Was it really THAT bad?

[mego joe]

Easy to learn? HAHA. Some of the hardest lessons to learn are those when you have to accept fault.

Hard to accept fault perhaps, but easy to see what was done wrong. It's harder to accept things and learn and grow when it appears you've done the right thing all along.

Except that it does.

Mony Python again.

And in this case it doesn't.

And again.

Sorry my view of the character isn't as narrow as yours.

My view is not narrow. It is deep. Your view is based on the cosmetics of the character. You are not considering the content of his character and the experiences that have developed him into the person he is. Singer didn't consider this either.

As a three dimensional character, there are MANY things he is capable of.

And yet you have to SHOW why and how he is capable of his transgressions against Lois and Jason in order to make this believable, b/c everything we know about SUperman indicates that he would not be capable of such an act. This is what it gets down to. The motivation is out of character as well as the actions. You have to show how and why you get from point A to point B if you want to have a 3-D character. Otherwise, it's just an incorrect portrayal.

Again, showing a side of him that was previously unseen. And then he shows his TRUE character by how he handles the situation.

And there is nothing in his background to make this 'unseen side' believable. Nothing to indicate it would be capable of such a thing.. So where did it come it come from? Bryan SInger's misunderstanding of the character is where. You are blindly accepting of EVERYTHING in the film w/o questioning why he's done thing.

But they don't eschew the essence of the character. He makes a mistake in one moment. ONE MOMENT. That doesn't even happen in the movie. And then he handles the effects of it as his essence would dictate.

If it maintained his essence he would have said goodbye in the first place. Period. THere's no in-character explanation for why he would be in a sexual relationship with Lois and her not know his dual identity and there's no in-character explanation for why he would leave w/o saying goodbye under the circumstances. The rest of the film is inconsequential.

I know exactly what's it for. But I also know what it's been used for.

Care to give an example of when it's been used for the 'emotionally weak' Superman to run off and hide?

I'll concede this point to you. And I'm glad. Because if they didn't he would be stuck being the boring one dimensional character you want to keep him.

THe problem is not one-dimensionality b/c that's what you have with SR. You prefer your characters to be contradictory and to appear to be something they really aren't. Three dimensionality comes from an exploration of the hows and whys of a characters motivation, values and beliefs. That's three dimensionality. Having a inner conflict is just contradicton in a character and it can be either one-dimensional in which the hows and whys are not explored, or it can be three dimensional in which the hows and whys are explored and you understand the motivation of the character.

HAHA. He will always desperately want to be human. Because he will always be alien. This is something that unfortunately is not covered enough. It makes for great drama when they focus not only on the Super but on the Man.

HAHA. He is human. He's fine with that. He's fine with being human DESPITE his alien heritage. To think that it's a problem is to misunderstand the substance of the character. He got over that in his process of growing up.

Wow. It's very existence must drive you up the wall. Set up wrong? Only in your head. For those who understand the character as a 3 dimensional character, not wrong at all.

I'm sorry you've been suckered in by Singer's bastardization of the character.

Except that it's trivial in this case. The story is about the present. You're too busy living in the past. Which if, oddly enough, is what the character did, then you'd have someone self-pitying and sorry.

The set up is not trivial. If it doesn't work then the rest of the film is a waste of time, which is exactly what SR was.

Except that it did. And your best efforts aren't going to change that fact.

Singer suckered you in. It's obvious.

And I got one!

In the comics yes. In the earlier films- yes. In SR? Not even close.

Again, it's called setting up a character arc. You didn't like it. Deal.

I am. By discussing the faults of the film with those poor souls who have been deluded into believing SInger knew what he was doing or that he actually understood the essence of the character.

Tell that to Romeo and Juliet.

Yes, two immature teenagers is exactly how I'd like to compare Superman and Lois's realtionship to. SUperman's not a tragic hero. You are simply unable to distinguish the uniqueness of the essence of Superman's character from anyone else.

Tell that to anyone who has experienced a great loss. Tell that to jealousy. Tell that to anyone who has experienced heart ache of any kind.

I'd be happy to. THe heartache in SR came AFTER he ditched Lois not before.

You're right about one thing. I'll watch a GREAT portrayal of the character that actually tries to DO something with the character and explore him as he deserves to be and not stuck in some rigid fanboys idea of him.

The very fact that this is the ONLY interpretation of the character that works for you is pretty much admission that it is completely different from the valid interpretations, which has been my point all along. Glad you can see it my way.

Read most of For Tomorrow. Boring. I mean the writing itself was good as Azzarello usually is. But talk about brooding. Ugh. Nope. Doesn't interest me. Still focusing too much on the Super and not enough on the Man. Can't relate to it.

If you'd bothered to finish it you might have found out something about the man.

 

[stargazer]

WHy does my intense dislike of the film bother you so much?

Personally, it doesn't bother me at all. None of your comments or critizicims have affected me in any way or stopped me from enjoying or loving the film. I just think your level of hate and obsession with this film is really Freaky and hard to understand, that's all.

But go on with your hate and with your agenda, if that makes you feel better..

 

[Super Kal]

and you know, I could say the same thing about those who love the film blindly, mostpowerful...

I may hate it as much as mego joe, but even you can't deny that there are people out there who love it just as intensely as we hate it, and blindly accept it as utterly flawless.

 

[El Payaso]

The difference is there's a lot more to GWTW and Psycho- that's ALL that SR was about.

The thing is you didn't prove a thing about it with that poor parody. As i proved it can be done with any movie.

 

[Super Kal]

Still focusing too much on the Super and not enough on the Man.

sorry, but that's who Superman is. I'd rather read about Superman than Man because Man is boring... Man can't fly. Man can't bend steel in his bare hand. Man can't leap tall buildings with a single bound.

SUPERman can... hence the word "super".

Singer put too much emphasis on the man rather than the hero, and IMO that's why it was a bad movie.

 

[El Payaso]

sorry, but that's who Superman is. I'd rather read about Superman than Man because Man is boring... Man can't fly. Man can't bend steel in his bare hand. Man can't leap tall buildings with a single bound.

SUPERman can... hence the word "super".

Singer put too much emphasis on the man rather than the hero, and IMO that's why it was a bad movie.

With all the people Superman saved, risking Lois life and then his own, it had enough 'hero' emphasis.

I guess it didn't have enough 'super-powers being fun' emphasis maybe?

 

[mego joe]

Personally, it doesn't bother me at all. None of your comments or critizicims have affected me in any way or stopped me from enjoying or loving the film. I just think your level of hate and obsession with this film is really Freaky and hard to understand, that's all.

But go on with your hate and with your agenda, if that makes you feel better..

Your love for the film is the same to me. How can such a misrepresented Superman be loved by anyone?

 

[mego joe]

sorry, but that's who Superman is. I'd rather read about Superman than Man because Man is boring... Man can't fly. Man can't bend steel in his bare hand. Man can't leap tall buildings with a single bound.

SUPERman can... hence the word "super".

Singer put too much emphasis on the man rather than the hero, and IMO that's why it was a bad movie.

And he got the characterization of the MAN wrong.

 

[mego joe]

With all the people Superman saved, risking Lois life and then his own, it had enough 'hero' emphasis.

I guess it didn't have enough 'super-powers being fun' emphasis maybe?

But it got the MAN wrong.

 

[Super Kal]

Your love for the film is the same to me. How can such a misrepresented Superman be loved by anyone?

because people have different interpretations of who Superman really is... that's one thing Singer got completely wrong about Superman. He wanted Superman to seem like he came out of our collective conscious, and the problem is, we don't have a collective conscious when it comes to Superman.

Everyone has their own view on this hero.

 

[CLARKY]

I just think your level of hate and obsession with this film is really Freaky and hard to understand, that's all.

Yeah, same here.

Mego Joe seems to want the George Reeves' Superman back on the big screen, but that Superman just doesn't play anymore, it's too simplistic, boring, and one-dimensional. There is no real drama, no character development or anything really relevant about that type of Superman for this day and age. It's too good to be true. If I wanted a flawless Superman who is so perfect and immaculated, I have the cartoons. For the movies I want more. And to me SR succeded in that aspect, it made me care about Superman again. And I want more of this Superman, he seems so real, warm, caring and heroic.

Well, G.Reeves' Superman had his good aspects from the few I saw. But hey, I see perfectly what you mean, but in the same time, I've got nothing against immaculate heroes. It is very very hard to write them correctly, but I like it. Nevertheless, I'm like you : SR made me care about Superman again. I was "oh my God, this time he REALLY is sad!", "oh, my God this time it hurts for real!" And I agree with you, he seemed sooo real, and caring and warm, and at the end like you said heroic. I found him beautiful.
I'm a fan of the old movies or the old cartoons or Superman TAS, and I liked them, but every time I want to see a more sensitive Superman, a superman who succeed in escaping the icon he trapped in, every time I want to see a real person caring for real, worriyng for real, not because it's the good way to do but becase he really feel that ay, ... I watch SR.
I think I understand quite good what you said.

 

[El Payaso]

But it got the MAN wrong.

It got it heroic, noble but imperfect. The way great men have always been and will always be.

 

[stargazer]

sorry, but that's who Superman is. I'd rather read about Superman than Man because Man is boring... Man can't fly. Man can't bend steel in his bare hand. Man can't leap tall buildings with a single bound.

SUPERman can... hence the word "super".

Singer put too much emphasis on the man rather than the hero, and IMO that's why it was a bad movie.

Interesting post, Kal.

You know, ever since I saw the Chris Reeve Superman movies, my favorite parts where always getting to know more about who this Man (Superman/Clark) really was deep inside, always. I found him very interesting and fascinating as a person and the dealing with his powers and mission. Do I enjoy the superheroics? Yes, of course, but the superpowers without a back story or character motivation does nothing for me, I can't relate, just like with Transformers, a totally shallow and forgettable experience. To me both the Man and the Super are equally important, especially the Man. Yeah, I love Superman, I wish he was real.

 

[mego joe]

It got it heroic, noble but imperfect. The way great men have always been and will always be.

It got irresponsible. Immature. Jerk. And Deadbeat. That's just not the right story for SUperman.

 

[Super Kal]

Interesting post, Kal.

You know, ever since I saw the Chris Reeve Superman movies, my favorite parts where always getting to know more about who this Man (Superman/Clark) really was deep inside, always. I found him very interesting and fascinating as a person and the dealing with his powers and mission. Do I enjoy the superheroics? Yes, of course, but the superpowers without a back story or character motivation does nothing for me, I can't relate, just like with Transformers, a totally shallow and forgettable experience. To me both the Man and the Super are equally important, especially the Man. Yeah, I love Superman, I wish he was real.

of course the powers and "superness" should have a backstory, but that doesn't mean you should sacrifice most of the "super" to show the "man".

 

[mego joe]

of course the powers and "superness" should have a backstory, but that doesn't mean you should sacrifice most of the "super" to show the "man".

MAN is not the opposite of SUPER. You can show the MAN but focus on the qualties that make him capable of being the hero he is (which incidentally are about the MAN, not the SUPER.)

Explore how the two work together to make ONE hero. A Super-MAN. His huMANity is not a weakness it's his greatest strength- something completely missing from the SR bastardization of the character.

 

[stargazer]

Yeah, same here.

Well, G.Reeves' Superman had his good aspects from the few I saw. But hey, I see perfectly what you mean, but in the same time, I've got nothing against immaculate heroes. It is very very hard to write them correctly, but I like it. Nevertheless, I'm like you : SR made me care about Superman again. I was "oh my God, this time he REALLY is sad!", "oh, my God this time it hurts for real!" And I agree with you, he seemed sooo real, and caring and warm, and at the end like you said heroic. I found him beautiful.
I'm a fan of the old movies or the old cartoons or Superman TAS, and I liked them, but every time I want to see a more sensitive Superman, a superman who succeed in escaping the icon he trapped in, every time I want to see a real person caring for real, worriyng for real, not because it's the good way to do but becase he really feel that ay, ... I watch SR.
I think I understand quite good what you said.

I'm so glad you like the Superman of SR. I think he is the same guy of STM and S2, just more fleshed out and realistic.

And just to clarify, I do like the George Reeves Superman, STM and S2, the Fleischers Superman, the JLU one, the Superfriends one, the comics one, STAS one, all of them. They all have aspects I like and enjoy and consider an important part of Supes lore and mythology, I just think that most of them are not fleshed out enough for my tastes as an adult. But I like them and watch them sometimes.

From all of those I have to say that my favorites are the Fleischers, the comics (some stories are great!), the Chris movies, and SR (my #1). The only versions I don't really like are Smallville and Lois & Clark. I just tolerate them.

 

[Super Kal]

MAN is not the opposite of SUPER. You can show the MAN but focus on the qualties that make him capable of being the hero he is (which incidentally are about the MAN, not the SUPER.)

Explore how the two work together to make ONE hero. A Super-MAN. His huMANity is not a weakness it's his greatest strength- something completely missing from the SR bastardization of the character.

I see it as his strength and his biggest weakness... to quote Zod "He cares... he actually cares for these earth creatures..." the story did not show Superman utilizing his "super" enough in order for his "man" to shine.

lol, this is starting to sound wrong

 

[stargazer]

I see it as his strength and his biggest weakness... to quote Zod "He cares... he actually cares for these earth creatures..." the story did not show Superman utilizing his "super" enough in order for his "man" to shine.

lol, this is starting to sound wrong

And emo? jk

 

[stargazer]

of course the powers and "superness" should have a backstory, but that doesn't mean you should sacrifice most of the "super" to show the "man".

I found a good balance of the Man and the Super (and the god) in SR. I found it utterly fascinating.

 

[Nightwing1977]

I do not understand this hate of the movie. Me ? when I dislike a movie, well, I forget it, but I certainly do not try to convince people that the film was bad, especially with this level of hate I can see on these boards.
I did disagree with some things in Superman Returns but I liked the movie pretty much. I found it great and I hope to see a sequel. simple.

Word. While SR has it share of flaws & mistakes (every movies has it share of that, since nothing is perfect), it didn't mean the whole film was bad. At least it was better than Catwoman, Steel, and Batman & Robin.

 

[Super Kal]

I found a good balance of the Man and the Super (and the god) in SR. I found it utterly fascinating.

I didn't.

 

[stargazer]

Word. While SR has it share of flaws & mistakes (every movies has it share of that, since nothing is perfect), it didn't mean the whole film was bad. At least it was better than Catwoman, Steel, and Batman & Robin.

Oh, please.. To me SR, although not perfect, it's the best superhero movie. I enjoy it soo much more than BB, honestly. Heck, I enjoy other superhero movies more than BB, which I do like, I just think it's overrated here.

 

[skruloos]

It got irresponsible. Immature. Jerk. And Deadbeat. That's just not the right story for SUperman.

Irresponsible and immature? Possibly in the prologue that was NEVER SHOWN IN THE MOVIE. But in the movie itself? At no point does he shirk responsibility. And at no point is he actually a jerk to anyone.

 

[skruloos]

But it got the MAN wrong.

Not really. He captured man, flaws and all.