Superman Returns Was it really THAT bad?

[X-Maniac]

You are way off base here. It is not your job to tell posters why they like Superman Returns. I like Superman Returns and I could care less about Bryan Singer. So don't tell me I am worshipping Singer if I like Superman Returns, that is a completely unfounded broad generalization that doesn't make any sense in the least. That is the most ridiculous thing I have read on these boards in a long time, and there has been many a ridiculous statement on these boards.

It's pretty obvious that there is some blind worship on this forum. People with 'Defenders of Singer's Vision' in their sigs for a start. How fanatical is that!?

I do indeed think there are a number of people who are merely here to defend Singer, and who like Singer's work more than they like an accurate Superman. If Singer made a movie in which Lois Lane and Lana Lang were lesbian lovers, they'd be saying it brought something new and fresh.

You have every right to hate the movie, you have every right to talk about how you hate the movie. I encourage you to debate this movie any way you want it, until you are blue in the face, but everybody needs to be civil about it.

The thing is I don't even 'hate' the movie. It's a movie. It was disappointing in many regards, as far as i was concerned.

Disappointing because it could so easily have been so much more. And disappointing because the director of two pretty good X-Men movies (which still deviated from source but did capture themes and seem to respect the comic lore) then made something that seemed so off target.

SR could easily have been accurate and respectful as well as artistic and poetic. But the story was dictated by the efforts to make it artistic. Messianic symbolism forced the story to go in certain directions (like having Superman disappear from a hospital bed simply to make it look like the shrouds in Christ's empty tomb). The art came before the character.

I can admire the art and visual style (even though the tones were too dark and the suit had odd colours of sky-blue and maroon). But that's not the whole package.

I'll be watching.

Well, you're a mod. That's what mods do. I wouldn't expect anything less.

 

[Super Kal]

there may be some blind worship on the site, X-Maniac, but don't always assume all of them think the same way...

 

[X-Maniac]

When it comes to movie art, yes.

Art isn't everything. The visual art is the means by which the director tells the story. First the story has to be right.

And a movie has to have entertainment value. And a movie about Superman has to conform to public expectations of a Superman movie. You can still have your art and poetry and visual style to present the movie, but the basic foundations must be right. Especially if there is a source with a massive fanbase.

I'm not asking for cheese, cliches and explosions aplenty....

If I seemed a little harsh earlier, i meant no offence. But i think i raised some valid points and did at least stimulate some debate.

 

[Showtime]

It's pretty obvious that there is some blind worship on this forum. People with 'Defenders of Singer's Vision' in their sigs for a start. How fanatical is that!?

Singer's vision of Superman, not Singer's vision, they don't care bout his eyeglasses. I don't see your point at all.

I do indeed think there are a number of people who are merely here to defend Singer, and who like Singer's work more than they like an accurate Superman. If Singer made a movie in which Lois Lane and Lana Lang were lesbian lovers, they'd be saying it brought something new and fresh.

If they are here, then its a handful. You think people have Bryan Singer posters in their room or Superman posters?

The thing is I don't even 'hate' the movie. It's a movie. It was disappointing in many regards, as far as i was concerned.

Disappointing because it could so easily have been so much more. And disappointing because the director of two pretty good X-Men movies (which still deviated from source but did capture themes and seem to respect the comic lore) then made something that seemed so off target.

SR could easily have been accurate and respectful as well as artistic and poetic. But the story was dictated by the efforts to make it artistic. Messianic symbolism forced the story to go in certain directions (like having Superman disappear from a hospital bed simply to make it look like the shrouds in Christ's empty tomb). The art came before the character.

I can admire the art and visual style (even though the tones were too dark and the suit had odd colours of sky-blue and maroon). But that's not the whole package.

That is fine and that is your opinion, some share it and some don't. I don't care if you like or hate the movie. I don't care if Bryan Singer comes back, I don't care if Routh comes back. I care about Superman. Some like Singer's version of Superman, some don't. It is what it is.

 

[Nightwing1977]

Thank, Show. I hate it when some accuse those who like SR as "blind worshipper of Singer" or whatever. We like his vision of Supes, not just the guy himself. The thing is, Supes been around for 70 years that there are many different vision of how some use him. SR is another one. Just like STM, Lois & Clark tv, pre-Crisis Supes & so on.

 

[El Payaso]

Art isn't everything. The visual art is the means by which the director tells the story. First the story has to be right.

[/COLOR]

art Show phonetics
noun
1 the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings

Art is everything. Storytelling is art. Visuals is art. Music is art.

And the story is also the means by which thje director tells the story. And so is music. That’s the beauty of cinema, you tell the story with far ore than words only. You tell the story with everything involved.

And a movie has to have entertainment value.

Which doesn’t contradict its artistic nature at all.

And a movie about Superman has to conform to public expectations of a Superman movie.

And from all those different expectations, there are the directors who try to satisfy the higher ones.

You can still have your art and poetry and visual style to present the movie, but the basic foundations must be right. Especially if there is a source with a massive fanbase.

The movie can be good independent from fans getting what they want or think they want.

If I seemed a little harsh earlier, i meant no offence. But i think i raised some valid points and did at least stimulate some debate.

About fans who like Singer’s vision on Superman you raised no valid point but the fact that you can’t deal too well with diversity and people react soon to intolerance.

 

[skruloos]

It's pretty obvious that there is some blind worship on this forum. People with 'Defenders of Singer's Vision' in their sigs for a start. How fanatical is that!?

Fanatical? Not really. It's a lightning rod. An easy target for people who choose to jump at something that is relatively inconsequential. It was in response to the people who did a whole Chris Nolan devotee thing on the Batman boards.

I do indeed think there are a number of people who are merely here to defend Singer, and who like Singer's work more than they like an accurate Superman.

The problem with this is that there is no universal standard of "accuracy". If I had Superman in a movie and had him say "Time to Slap a Jap" it would be accurate to a period of Superman's history, wouldn't it? Superman is something different to a lot of people. That's the beauty of a character that has existed for so long in so many different mediums with so many interpretations.

It may not be YOUR Superman, but it doesn't change that it IS Superman.

 

[skruloos]

Art isn't everything. The visual art is the means by which the director tells the story. First the story has to be right.

I do believe that story is part of the art. The great thing about art is that not everyone has to agree on it. All it has to do is communicate it's message. It might not have done that for you but it did to others. Its job is done.

And a movie has to have entertainment value. And a movie about Superman has to conform to public expectations of a Superman movie. You can still have your art and poetry and visual style to present the movie, but the basic foundations must be right. Especially if there is a source with a massive fanbase.

As far as I'm concerned, the "massive fanbase" can take a hike. It's full of fanatics with false feelings of ownership and entitlement who can't handle change unless it fits in their narrow worldview; who essentially cannot think outside the box. It's especially bad in an adaptation because the original work becomes a prisoning confinement. The WORST thing an artist can do is pander to fanatics.

 

[mego joe]

Maybe because it doesn't misrepresent Superman but rather expands our understanding of him. I know it's hard for you to understand this concept. But hey, it seems that some people actually got this.

Or the same could be true. The movie simply misrepresents him and some of you guys didn't actually get this. I know it's hard for you to understand this.

 

[mego joe]

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

I know what you mean by 'weakness' but I see it as a vulnerability that CAN be exploited by others such as Luthor luring him off the Earth (if that had acutally been in the moive), but it would not be a weakness in the sense that he would screw Lois over in order to save his own feelings.

 

[mego joe]

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.

THe entire story encompasses the backstory/ prologue that's not show. It happened in the context of the film. Otherwise, there's no beginning to the story in SR, and no explanation for what happens in the film and why people are doing what they are doing.

It's in the context of the whole story being told. You can't ignore it. I find that it starts the film off on the wrong foot and there is never an in-character explanation that would explain why he would be in a sexual realationship with Lois in which Lois doesn't know he's also Clark, that he leaves w/o saying goodbye, and his motivation for NOT saying goodbye is that it was 'too difficult,' so he can save his own feelings and that he doesn't have the determination and resolve to do what he knows is right (telling Lois) so he can do what he ALSO knows what is right (going to check for Kryptonian survivors.)

The fact is, this story before the film has a lot more potential and sound infinitely more interesting than what was actually shown on screen in SR.

 

[mego joe]

It doesn't expand anything at all. It creates an entirely new character who just happens to have the name Superman. It's Singer's incorrect interpretation of the character. If you like, accept or enjoy that interpretation, if you can let aesthetics overpower proper storytelling and characterisation, then that's up to you. But you are not really a true fan of Superman.

End of Superman 2: 'I'll never leave again Mr President"
Superman Returns: he leaves again, with no goodbye.

That's a big clue right there to the total inconsistency. The Superman of SR is not any known version of Superman, it is Singer's misjudgement, misinterpretation and misunderstanding of who Superman is. And that's all the more astonishing since he loves Donner's movies so much, yet creates a 'Superman' who is not at all the character in those movies.

If you can enjoy the artistic merit and production value of the movie and ignore the flawed characterisation, then fine, but you are enjoying Singer and not Superman, you are a fan of the director and not the character.

This isn't the only time a superhero movie has mis-stepped. But the reaction to the movie - the online community is the most divided I've ever seen over a superhero movie..some worship it, some loathe it - proves that it was not at all perfect or true to the character.

Mega joe is quite correct in his arguments. But some of you are willing to overlook mischaracterisation and enjoy Singer's vision and the art/poetry of it all. And that's okay. But don't pretend to be fans of Superman because you're not - you're worshippers of Singer. That's fine too. But let's not pretend here.

Singer's not a bad director, and his visual storytelling is great. But he also has to respect the source material. Otherwise, he should create his own original superheroes and he can do what he likes with those without going against an established canon and mythos.

Wow, X-man- that was awesome!

 

[mego joe]

Fanatical? Not really. It's a lightning rod. An easy target for people who choose to jump at something that is relatively inconsequential. It was in response to the people who did a whole Chris Nolan devotee thing on the Batman boards.


The problem with this is that there is no universal standard of "accuracy". If I had Superman in a movie and had him say "Time to Slap a Jap" it would be accurate to a period of Superman's history, wouldn't it? Superman is something different to a lot of people. That's the beauty of a character that has existed for so long in so many different mediums with so many interpretations.

It may not be YOUR Superman, but it doesn't change that it IS Superman.

IMO, my definition of Superman is based more on the substance of the character rather than the cosmetics of the character. Sure Routh looked like Superman and he was called Clark Kent, but the substance of the character was not Superman and the story was not a 'Superman story.'

You say you have a broader definition, I say I have a deeper understanding of the character.

 

[skruloos]

IMO, my definition of Superman is based more on the substance of the character rather than the cosmetics of the character. Sure Routh looked like Superman and he was called Clark Kent, but the substance of the character was not Superman and the story was not a 'Superman story.'

You say you have a broader definition, I say I have a deeper understanding of the character.

It's funny. I see your understanding of the character very superficial and rigid. You box him into what you deem as acceptable. I don't. I realize that if the character is to be presented as 3 Dimensional that there will be facets to him that will not fit into that box.

Superman surpasses whatever understanding you think you have. He is greater than your idea of him. Again, he exists with or without your acceptance. You do not own the character. I understand that you have this preferred idea of him. I understand that you have this ideal that you wish him to be. But he is not confined by your ideas of who he is.

But again, that's the beauty of the character. You can choose to disregard an interpretation of him because it might not fit your ideal view of him. There are certainly comics or cartoon interpretations of him that I do not agree with. But I'm not so full of myself to cry out that they aren't Superman.

 

[mego joe]

It's funny. I see your understanding of the character very superficial and rigid. You box him into what you deem as acceptable.

I just base my understanding on what has come before, comics, tv shows, cartoons and movies. THere are just some things SUperman is not going to do. THere are somethings that just don't fit the character. Things that are based on his characterization and motivation, who he is supposed to be as a person and a MAN.

I don't.

I see your definition as a more superficial understanding that doesn't require the whys and hows of his life. And therefore, you are willing to accpet anything he does as 'in-character' b/c of the blanket- 'he's human' argument. You're not taking in the differences between individual humans. Sure, when we're born, all humans are a blank slate and have the potential to become ANYTHING and do ANYTHING, but once hey grow and mature and are nurtured they become an individual and not a generic human. Accepting ANYTHING when it come to Superman ignores the individual experiences he's had, what he's already learned, what he vaulues and believes in, his morality and ethics. To me my understanding is much deeper and more thorough b/c I am basing my opinion on these elements, to simply say 'he's human, so he's capable of doing anything,' is merely scratching the surface of understanding the character or ANYONE, it doesn't account for one's individuality.

I realize that if the character is to be presented as 3 Dimensional that there will be facets to him that will not fit into that box.

To me your idea of 3 dimensionality is simply internal character conflict. Hiding something. A revelation that we never knew about. But if there is no explanation of the whys and hows that give a deeper understanding of the character then the depiction is just as shallow as the George Reeves TV Show.

Superman surpasses whatever understanding you think you have. He is greater than your idea of him. Again, he exists with or without your acceptance. You do not own the character. I understand that you have this preferred idea of him. I understand that you have this ideal that you wish him to be.

No, I have an understanding of the substance of SUperman's character based on my previous exposure and analysis of the character in the multitude of stories in the media he's been presented in over the years.

But he is not confined by your ideas of who he is.

Nor does it mean you are correct in your assessment, either. Your box is too big, b/c it doesn't take into account the deeper understanding of the character. THere are some things Superman won't do. Period. To deny this is to deny people's individuality.

But again, that's the beauty of the character. You can choose to disregard an interpretation of him because it might not fit your ideal view of him. There are certainly comics or cartoon interpretations of him that I do not agree with. But I'm not so full of myself to cry out that they aren't Superman.

Perhaps you're just not as familiar with the character as I am. I don't know your past experience with him, but I know that there are characters I am not as familiar with so I am more forgiving in their representations in other media. The X-Men are a great example. I've never been an X-fan, but I've enjoyed the movies. There are changes that were made that have upset X-fans, but they didn't bother me because I have limited experience and exposure to the characters. I get the broad strokes, but not some of the finer details, so I wonder if this isn't how it is for fans of SR.

 

[StylishHokie21]

I can't say if it was bad as Superman 3 and 4 since I never saw them, but I'd say it's worse than the first two movies.

 

[StylishHokie21]

It's pretty obvious that there is some blind worship on this forum. People with 'Defenders of Singer's Vision' in their sigs for a start. How fanatical is that!?

I do indeed think there are a number of people who are merely here to defend Singer, and who like Singer's work more than they like an accurate Superman. If Singer made a movie in which Lois Lane and Lana Lang were lesbian lovers, they'd be saying it brought something new and fresh.

I can see what you're saying, but not everyone is like this. I'm sure the people that liked it realized it had it's faults, but that doesn't mean they're blind worshippers.

The thing is I don't even 'hate' the movie. It's a movie. It was disappointing in many regards, as far as i was concerned.

Disappointing because it could so easily have been so much more. And disappointing because the director of two pretty good X-Men movies (which still deviated from source but did capture themes and seem to respect the comic lore) then made something that seemed so off target.

I agree here. The first two X-Men movies were excellent. When I watched SR, I kept thinking....is this the same director? How could this have happened?

 

[skruloos]

I just base my understanding on what has come before, comics, tv shows, cartoons and movies. THere are just some things SUperman is not going to do. THere are somethings that just don't fit the character. Things that are based on his characterization and motivation, who he is supposed to be as a person and a MAN.

And here is my point exactly. This is where the history of the character becomes debilitating to storytelling. This is where the character becomes stagnant and locked in a box.

I see your definition as a more superficial understanding that doesn't require the whys and hows of his life. And therefore, you are willing to accpet anything he does as 'in-character' b/c of the blanket- 'he's human' argument. You're not taking in the differences between individual humans. Sure, when we're born, all humans are a blank slate and have the potential to become ANYTHING and do ANYTHING, but once hey grow and mature and are nurtured they become an individual and not a generic human. Accepting ANYTHING when it come to Superman ignores the individual experiences he's had, what he's already learned, what he vaulues and believes in, his morality and ethics. To me my understanding is much deeper and more thorough b/c I am basing my opinion on these elements, to simply say 'he's human, so he's capable of doing anything,' is merely scratching the surface of understanding the character or ANYONE, it doesn't account for one's individuality.

But at the same time, confining the character to your supposed understanding is stifling to the character and the creative process. It doesn't matter who the person is. Given different circumstances and faced with tough choices, humans will act our of character. The drama is then about how to deal with that and realign yourself with that character. If you do not explore this, then there is no growth, no self-realization, and frankly no drama.

To me your idea of 3 dimensionality is simply internal character conflict. Hiding something. A revelation that we never knew about. But if there is no explanation of the whys and hows that give a deeper understanding of the character then the depiction is just as shallow as the George Reeves TV Show.

No. Because the story isn't about the hows and the whys no matter how much you wish it was. The POINT of the story is re-alignment not what put him out of whack in the first place. I know that you nitpick on this because you don't buy it. Fair enough. But that's not the story.

No, I have an understanding of the substance of SUperman's character based on my previous exposure and analysis of the character in the multitude of stories in the media he's been presented in over the years.

And it is precisely this "understanding", this fanaticism that is a hinderance. It is this self-imposed superiority complex that you've built yourself as a supposed "expert" on Superman which is what will eventually kill the character, creatively speaking. You can't see the forest for the trees.

Nor does it mean you are correct in your assessment, either. Your box is too big, b/c it doesn't take into account the deeper understanding of the character. THere are some things Superman won't do. Period. To deny this is to deny people's individuality.

No. My box is just fine. It takes into account the depth of humanity and the flaws that we have. It doesn't deny people's individuality. It realizes that everyone is human.

Perhaps you're just not as familiar with the character as I am. I don't know your past experience with him, but I know that there are characters I am not as familiar with so I am more forgiving in their representations in other media. The X-Men are a great example. I've never been an X-fan, but I've enjoyed the movies. There are changes that were made that have upset X-fans, but they didn't bother me because I have limited experience and exposure to the characters. I get the broad strokes, but not some of the finer details, so I wonder if this isn't how it is for fans of SR.

No. I am well versed in the character so save your trite, patronizing "I'm a true fan" BS because frankly, I'm not buying. It is because of my love and history with the character that I can see the value in SR. I can appreciate something fresh and something that shows me a different type of Superman, one who is immensely more relatable as a human. After decades of the same tripe only told in various writing styles, I see someone who took the chance with the character and I appreciate it. Someone who took a Kryptonian with the powers of a God, the ultimate Boy Scout, and gave him a weakness in Lois Lane but took it to an extreme. That's the best kind of drama and storytelling. You raise the stakes. Go big or go home.

I understand that this would piss off a lot of so-called fans. I say good for Singer. And for anyone else who tries it for that matter. Great art doesn't come from agreeing with the status quo. It comes from pushing the envelope and making the uncomfortable statements.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

It wasnt that bad, but it damn sure wasnt outstanding or that good either.

 

[El Payaso]

Wow, X-man- that was awesome!

Awe at least, not true fans because we liked the movie?

 

[Showtime]

Wow, X-man- that was awesome!

No it wasn't, it was completely narrow-minded. How can you support the generalization of all fans that liked Superman Returns. I'm suprised you would feel that way.

 

[Showtime]

Or the same could be true. The movie simply misrepresents him and some of you guys didn't actually get this. I know it's hard for you to understand this.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[stargazer]

It wasnt that bad, but it damn sure wasnt outstanding or that good either.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

"The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good."
Stanley Kubrick.

 

[stargazer]

And here is my point exactly. This is where the history of the character becomes debilitating to storytelling. This is where the character becomes stagnant and locked in a box.


But at the same time, confining the character to your supposed understanding is stifling to the character and the creative process. It doesn't matter who the person is. Given different circumstances and faced with tough choices, humans will act our of character. The drama is then about how to deal with that and realign yourself with that character. If you do not explore this, then there is no growth, no self-realization, and frankly no drama.

No. Because the story isn't about the hows and the whys no matter how much you wish it was. The POINT of the story is re-alignment not what put him out of whack in the first place. I know that you nitpick on this because you don't buy it. Fair enough. But that's not the story.


And it is precisely this "understanding", this fanaticism that is a hinderance. It is this self-imposed superiority complex that you've built yourself as a supposed "expert" on Superman which is what will eventually kill the character, creatively speaking. You can't see the forest for the trees.


No. My box is just fine. It takes into account the depth of humanity and the flaws that we have. It doesn't deny people's individuality. It realizes that everyone is human.


No. I am well versed in the character so save your trite, patronizing "I'm a true fan" BS because frankly, I'm not buying. It is because of my love and history with the character that I can see the value in SR. I can appreciate something fresh and something that shows me a different type of Superman, one who is immensely more relatable as a human. After decades of the same tripe only told in various writing styles, I see someone who took the chance with the character and I appreciate it. Someone who took a Kryptonian with the powers of a God, the ultimate Boy Scout, and gave him a weakness in Lois Lane but took it to an extreme. That's the best kind of drama and storytelling. You raise the stakes. Go big or go home.

I understand that this would piss off a lot of so-called fans. I say good for Singer. And for anyone else who tries it for that matter. Great art doesn't come from agreeing with the status quo. It comes from pushing the envelope and making the uncomfortable statements.

Superman Returns is high art disguised as a blockbuster movie.

I'm glad Singer made a Film, instead of just another typical action flick. IMO, SR trascends the genre.

 

[Super Kal]

I respect your opinions, but i completely disagree with the both of you.