Superman Returns Was it really THAT bad?

[El Payaso]

I probably haven't been very active in this forum, but I want to go on record and say that Superman Returns is not only one of the best movies since the comicbook movie resurgence with X-Men, but one of the best ever. It's poetic, wonderful, it's a beautiful film. Perfectly balanced, tasteful....Singer handles everything with such elegance and never goes for the hamfisted approach so common in superhero movies. Superman Returns is moving and poignant. Empire magazine gave it five stars and declared it, "The best popular entertainment since Lord of the Rings," and I agree.

I won't even be too put out if there is no sequel. The fact that Superman Returns even got made is still a minor miracle. A sequel to the Reeve movies, and such a good one, such a big budget one, with an actor so similar to Reeve, with the Williams theme....the odds of all those elements coming together at once is unbelievable.

It's like Batman Returns. It's amazing it got made and it's to be treasured.

More agree I couldn't be. Only STM surpasses this one in the franchise.

And yes, who cares if execs filled their pockets or not. The mere fact that it was done - in Hollywood and inside of a quite limited and formulaistic genre - is treasure enough for me. Many masterpieces don't have sequels.

 

[stargazer]

Agreed, Kevin and El Payaso!

SR is a perfect companion to the first two Reeve movies. It's a soul sequel.

I totally agree with Richard Corliss from Time Magazine when he said that "Superman Returns is beyond super, it's superb."

I love his review of the movie. I think he "got it."

 

[superbaby]

i still fail to see how one can enjoy/love this movie if he/she is a superman fan. really.

it's neither explore on the impact of his return/missing nor the relationship of the people around him. it's just 'shy' like a little girl, briefly touching everything a bit and dare not to go any further.
the only strong point of the movie is the setting up of getting superman's ass kicked by an old man. that's the only thing singer didn't screw up.

having superman died twice in the first movie??? and having a son of 5 years old??? what the f... WB was really insane in that time to proceed with singer's story.

this is outrageous...

glad that it got a disappointing BO. serve them right.

 

[El Payaso]

i still fail to see how one can enjoy/love this movie if he/she is a superman fan. really. it's neither explore on the impact of his return/missing nor the relationship of the people around him.

Yes, it explores both.

When he saved the plane and then when he saved many other people – on TV, during the earthquake, Kitty on the car, Lois, Richard and Jason on the yatch – we see that impact. In fact we can see the anguish on people better than in any other Super-movie. And thus, we can see the impact better than verbally explained. Maybe some fans were expecting people talking about it. Then again I can see the complains against 2 hours of a talkative sociological study of the impact of Superman on people; “we want action dammit,” etc.

And the movie almost exclusively revolves around Superman and people around him; Lois, Jimmy, Richard, etc.

it's just 'shy' like a little girl,

In fact, as you say, it has some exquisit sensitivity.

briefly touching everything a bit and dare not to go any further.

On the contrary, opposite to the previous Super-movies – and to most superhero movies – SR dares to go further. As STM and SII did things only to undo them in thelast minute (time reversing and amnesia kiss), SR goes further giving Superman a true link with Lois beyond the eternal ‘yes but no, we love each other but this will never be anything else.’

the only strong point of the movie is the setting up of getting superman's ass kicked by an old man. that's the only thing singer didn't screw up.

And in the process Singer did it better than Donner in SII.

having superman died twice in the first movie???

It’s not the first movie and it means than Superman defeated death twice. Cool.

and having a son of 5 years old??? what the f... WB was really insane in that time to proceed with singer's story.

Yes. As amazing as it could sound, people do have kids as part of his life and matureness.

glad that it got a disappointing BO. serve them right.

BO has never reflected the quality. Now, it could have been dissapointing to the executives’ expectations but 400 mill is no dissapointing numbers.

 

[X-Maniac]

I don't think it comes anywhere near to LotR...and I think Batman Begins was better. I do appreciate Singer's endeavour to make something artistic and classic but, overall, I don't think it hit the right notes. It's like when you see great singers on American Idol who pick the wrong song or do the wrong thing with it. It has some great moments but i found the whole package to be unappealing. Spider-Man does manage to be character-driven, epic and also true to the character. Superman missed the mark - the opening scene should have been the Krypton sequence, connecting the viewer to the movie's theme and to the character of Superman. Instead the main character driving the plot was Lex Luthor.

 

[mego joe]

I probably haven't been very active in this forum, but I want to go on record and say that Superman Returns is not only one of the best movies since the comicbook movie resurgence with X-Men, but one of the best ever. It's poetic, wonderful, it's a beautiful film. Perfectly balanced, tasteful....Singer handles everything with such elegance and never goes for the hamfisted approach so common in superhero movies. Superman Returns is moving and poignant. Empire magazine gave it five stars and declared it, "The best popular entertainment since Lord of the Rings," and I agree.

I won't even be too put out if there is no sequel. The fact that Superman Returns even got made is still a minor miracle. A sequel to the Reeve movies, and such a good one, such a big budget one, with an actor so similar to Reeve, with the Williams theme....the odds of all those elements coming together at once is unbelievable.

It's like Batman Returns. It's amazing it got made and it's to be treasured.

I really wonder if we saw the same movie.

 

[stargazer]

I don't think it comes anywhere near to LotR...and I think Batman Begins was better. I do appreciate Singer's endeavour to make something artistic and classic but, overall, I don't think it hit the right notes. It's like when you see great singers on American Idol who pick the wrong song or do the wrong thing with it. It has some great moments but i found the whole package to be unappealing. Spider-Man does manage to be character-driven, epic and also true to the character. Superman missed the mark - the opening scene should have been the Krypton sequence, connecting the viewer to the movie's theme and to the character of Superman. Instead the main character driving the plot was Lex Luthor.

I don't think the Spiderman movies are epic. They are kiddie entertainment and fun with great action, and that's why they made so much $$. And most of the drama is cheesy and campy, it just doesn't compare to the elegant and compelling drama in SR or even the first two Reeve movies. The only scene I think is kinda epic is the train saving in Sm2. And even that was very exagerated...Spidey stopping a train??!! Since when is he as strong as Supes?! But I appreciate the context of the scene so I give it a pass.

And BB is very good but overrated. Its fans refuse to acknowledge its faults. I like it, but I fail to see the awesomeness in it. I have only watched it twice and as a rental. I'm just not invested emotionally in its characters as I am in the SR charaacters.
But I liked it enough to see TDK in theaters.

 

[mego joe]

I don't think the Spiderman movies are epic. They are kiddie entertainment and fun with great action, and that's why they made so much $$.

TO me SPider-Man and Spider-MAn 2 were more like the actual comics than any Superman film.

And most of the drama is cheesy and campy, it just doesn't compare to the elegant and compelling drama in SR or even the first two Reeve movies.

I think there's a lot more cheese in the first 2 Reeve films than the Spider-Man films. SR is just one cliche after another. And there's just nothing compelling about deadbeat/ Jerk Superman. It just doesn't work when you don't empathize with the lead character. SR just felt empty and hollow. A pit of despair which has no bottom.

The only scene I think is kinda epic is the train saving in Sm2. And even that was very exagerated...Spidey stopping a train??!! Since when is he as strong as Supes?!

He's got he proportionate strength of a spider. That's pretty strong.

But I appreciate the context of the scene so I give it a pass.

And BB is very good but overrated.

How so? It's more like a Batman comic than any other film.
And it's acknowledged as a really good film almost unanimously, whereas SR got a mixed reception from both critics, fans AND the General Audience.

Its fans refuse to acknowledge its faults.

Which are minimal when compared to the fact that the ENTRIE storyline in SR is it's biggest fault.

I like it, but I fail to see the awesomeness in it. I have only watched it twice and as a rental. I'm just not invested emotionally in its characters as I am in the SR charaacters.

Interesting, considering that SUperman is a jerk and has no chemistry with Lois and one actually finds a more heroic qualities in Richard WHite than Superman.

But I liked it enough to see TDK in theaters.

I like SUperman enough to have seen SR in theaters, but Singer won't fool me again.

 

[skruloos]

TO me SPider-Man and Spider-MAn 2 were more like the actual comics than any Superman film.

My sentiments exactly. And why I didn't like them as much as Superman Returns. When I go to see a comic book adaptation I want a great film first and foremost. I don't want it to be like the comics. I want it to be better than that and accomplish something the comics cannot do.

I think there's a lot more cheese in the first 2 Reeve films than the Spider-Man films. SR is just one cliche after another. And there's just nothing compelling about deadbeat/ Jerk Superman. It just doesn't work when you don't empathize with the lead character. SR just felt empty and hollow. A pit of despair which has no bottom.

Maybe it's because of the age I am or where I am in my life, but I more closely relate to an adult who makes adult mistakes and is able to handle his emotions and rise above when the need calls for it rather than someone who struggles with dating and popularity.

Interesting, considering that SUperman is a jerk and has no chemistry with Lois and one actually finds a more heroic qualities in Richard WHite than Superman.

Superman is a jerk? At no point is he ever rude to anyone. He made a mistake and he greatly regrets it. A hero isn't only judged by all his good deeds but how he handles the situations that tested him. And the set up with Richard White was perfect. It showed that Superman was still flawed and still had so much to learn despite being Super.

 

[El Payaso]

I don't think it comes anywhere near to LotR...and I think Batman Begins was better.

Mh. Lotr and Superman. Quite different kind of movies and characters. For that matter Godfather was even better than those. Now, Batman Begins has its own bunch of problems as a movie. Starting wqith the action and some dialogues.

Spider-Man does manage to be character-driven, epic and also true to the character.

We have Peter Parker eternally stuck in an average romantic comedy level sentimental relationship. That changes the value of the character-driven concept or the chance of true epic feeling. But the action is good. At least in Spiderman 2, I admit that. Good as only in just few superhero movies have been.

Superman missed the mark - the opening scene should have been the Krypton sequence, connecting the viewer to the movie's theme and to the character of Superman. Instead the main character driving the plot was Lex Luthor.

There are too many examples of good stories where the leading role is the one affected by actions and not the one who executes them. In fact everything starts because Superman left Earth.

 

[El Payaso]

TO me SPider-Man and Spider-MAn 2 were more like the actual comics than any Superman film.

Which proves what exactly? That they’re good? No.

Being more like the comics doesn’t contradict the fact that they were kiddie entertainment and fun with great action.

I think there's a lot more cheese in the first 2 Reeve films than the Spider-Man films.

Check again. The only thing that could be called cheese in Superman movies is Lex, Otis and Miss Teschmacher. But Raimi thinks everything must be an excuse for cheese and the crappiest sense of humor on the big screen. Spiderman having to take an elevator is reason enough for a over-streched boring uninspired and unfunny “humour” scene.

SR is just one cliche after another. And there's just nothing compelling about deadbeat/ Jerk Superman. It just doesn't work when you don't empathize with the lead character. SR just felt empty and hollow. A pit of despair which has no bottom.

Superman was no jerk to anyone. When he’s explaining how sorry he is he achieves empathy. I know your moral standards won’t let you forgive the character for his mistakes, but it’s not like he was all careless about what he’s done.

He's got he proportionate strength of a spider. That's pretty strong.

At least the train sequence is incredibly great. But it was yet another chance for Raimi to rip off Superman (starting with the shameless shirt-openings wink).

How so? It's more like a Batman comic than any other film.

Once again, being like the comics doesn’t exclude things like the lousy action, the cheesey one-liners or some of the dialogue. Being like the comics is no guarrantee of being good.

And it's acknowledged as a really good film almost unanimously, whereas SR got a mixed reception from both critics, fans AND the General Audience.

This is another factor that doesn’t prove a thing about quality. Popularity. That said, SR got pretty good reviews. 77% of good reviews according to rottentomatoes. Good enough. Even when it doesn’t prove a thing.

Interesting, considering that SUperman is a jerk and has no chemistry with Lois and one actually finds a more heroic qualities in Richard WHite than Superman.

If for chemistry, the lab wasn’t too refined between Bruce and Rachel.

And no, Superman was no jerk.

 

[stargazer]

I was going to respond to Mego Joe's reply to my post...but nah.
I see no point on it, it's just waste of time.

 

[mego joe]

My sentiments exactly. And why I didn't like them as much as Superman Returns. When I go to see a comic book adaptation I want a great film first and foremost. I don't want it to be like the comics. I want it to be better than that and accomplish something the comics cannot do.

When I go see a comic book film I want to see a good film but one that accurately adapts the material and the characters, otherwise, what's the point.

Maybe it's because of the age I am

WHich is?

or where I am in my life, but I more closely relate to an adult who makes adult mistakes and is able to handle his emotions and rise above when the need calls for it rather than someone who struggles with dating and popularity.

Me too. And Superman was unable to rise about his selfishness and he avoided his responsiblity when he ditched Lois w/o a goodbye. THat's high school my friend. THat's not 'rising above when the need call for it.' That's giving in to one's selfish emotions. You've got it backward.

Essentially, it was a coming of age story for a 30 year old man. THat just doesn't fit.

Superman is a jerk? At no point is he ever rude to anyone. He made a mistake and he greatly regrets it.

But ditching your girlfriend that you are sexually involved with w/o a goodbye IS being a jerk. C'mon.

A hero isn't only judged by all his good deeds but how he handles the situations that tested him.

And he proved that when it came down to deciding between his own feelings and Lois's feelings and justice for Lois, he determined that HE was more important.

And the set up with Richard White was perfect. It showed that Superman was still flawed and still had so much to learn despite being Super.

And the problem is that's not SUPERMAN. Superboy or teenaged Clark? Yes. Superman? No.

Richard consequently when he had the opportunity to choose between his own feelings and those of Lois and Jason, put them first b/c he WAS heroic. Superman in a similar situation did not. Thus, Richard was more heroic than Jason.

THere should't be another character in a Superman story that outshines SUperman in morality and ethics. YOu've got the character ALL WRONG when you do this.

 

[mego joe]

Which proves what exactly? That they’re good? No.

The first element in adapting comics to film is to achieve a level of accuracy in characterization, tone and spirit of the comics. Batman Begins and the first 2 Spider-Man films did this very well. IMO, SUperman Returns was almost the exact opposite in this area.

Being more like the comics doesn’t contradict the fact that they were kiddie entertainment and fun with great action.

Sorry, I don't see those films as kiddie entertainment. I don't what kind of films you take your kids to see, but it's not Spider-Man and Batman.


And this doesn't mean that SR was anymore than a cliched soap opera.

Check again. The only thing that could be called cheese in Superman movies is Lex, Otis and Miss Teschmacher. But Raimi thinks everything must be an excuse for cheese and the crappiest sense of humor on the big screen. Spiderman having to take an elevator is reason enough for a over-streched boring uninspired and unfunny “humour” scene.

Maybe it's just 'your' sense of humor. As for every scene you mentioned 1, yet you have the entire villainous cadre from S:TM as cheesy. THat's a lot of screen time devoted to cheese, eh?

Superman was no jerk to anyone.

Ditchng your girlfriend with whom you're sexually involved without a goodbye is the action of a jerk. Plain and simple. It cannot be spun any other way.

When he’s explaining how sorry he is he achieves empathy. I know your moral standards won’t let you forgive the character for his mistakes,

It's not about me forgiving him, it's about accuracy to the character. That's not the kind of character Superman is.

but it’s not like he was all careless about what he’s done.

But clearly he was careless BEFORE he left, otherwise he would have said goodbye. The whole story is flawed from the beginning.

At least the train sequence is incredibly great. But it was yet another chance for Raimi to rip off Superman (starting with the shameless shirt-openings wink).

And when did Superman stop a train like that?

Once again, being like the comics doesn’t exclude things like the lousy action, the cheesey one-liners or some of the dialogue. Being like the comics is no guarrantee of being good.

And in SR when the characerization and entire storyline flies in the face of 70 years of comics, it becomes obvious that the film is intrinsiclly flawed from the beginning.

This is another factor that doesn’t prove a thing about quality. Popularity. That said, SR got pretty good reviews. 77% of good reviews according to rottentomatoes. Good enough. Even when it doesn’t prove a thing.

Quality is completely subjective, therefore it can never be used as an aspect of arguing a film.

If for chemistry, the lab wasn’t too refined between Bruce and Rachel.

Well, I thought it fit the film. They were supposed to be childhood friends who never really maintained a deep connection over the years. He felt something, but it wasn't like Lois and SUperman who had been LOVERS and who are supposed to be the love of each others lives. Rachel and Bruce SHOULD appear a little awkward and ill at ease. Superman and Lois should appear to have a deep connection even if they actually aren't together. Otherwise, you never really have a conflict and want to see them get together at all vs. knowing it's wrong for SUperman to break up Richard and Lois.

And no, Superman was no jerk.

Ditch your girlfriend w/o saying goodbye and find out what she thinks of of you afterward. It will be far worse than a jerk.

 

[X-Maniac]

I don't think the Spiderman movies are epic. They are kiddie entertainment and fun with great action, and that's why they made so much $$. And most of the drama is cheesy and campy, it just doesn't compare to the elegant and compelling drama in SR or even the first two Reeve movies. The only scene I think is kinda epic is the train saving in Sm2. And even that was very exagerated...Spidey stopping a train??!! Since when is he as strong as Supes?! But I appreciate the context of the scene so I give it a pass.

And BB is very good but overrated. Its fans refuse to acknowledge its faults. I like it, but I fail to see the awesomeness in it. I have only watched it twice and as a rental. I'm just not invested emotionally in its characters as I am in the SR charaacters.
But I liked it enough to see TDK in theaters.

I acknowledge the faults in Batman Begins and the Spider-Man movies. But they were far more accurate and respectful versions of those heroes. Although SM3 began to go off the rails and depict a horribly unlikable Peter Parker (which was a study of pride and celebrity), the Spidey movies do seem very accurate to their characters. I'm an X-Men fanatic myself but I do admit the Spidey movies were more solidly consistent and respectful; friends at work were discussing this with me the other day and we all agreed the Spider-Man movies were the ones that got it right on all levels - for the mainstream, for the fans, for box office as well as critical ratings.

The drama in SR was not in any way compelling, apart from compelling me never to want to see it again. Key elements of the story (the absence, the world moving on) were never explored, Superman was characterised as this weirdo who simply stared at everything in a hopeless effort to show emotion or character (he stares when told Lex has got out of jail, he stares into Lois's home, he hovers above earth and stares at it, etc) which turns him into a heartless non-entity.

SR also had plenty of cliche - the camped-up Luthor who was a cross between Blofeld and Dr Evil; gangster's moll Kitty with her fur coat and her little dog; the Messianic symbolism (which ended up dictating the plot); the repeated lines of dialogue from the Donner movies; the opening scene with thunder and lightning like one of those late-night TV movies. I didn't find any of that borrowed, recycled stuff to be compellingly original, artistic, imaginative or innovative.

 

[superbaby]

I acknowledge the faults in Batman Begins and the Spider-Man movies. But they were far more accurate and respectful versions of those heroes. Although SM3 began to go off the rails and depict a horribly unlikable Peter Parker (which was a study of pride and celebrity), the Spidey movies do seem very accurate to their characters. I'm an X-Men fanatic myself but I do admit the Spidey movies were more solidly consistent and respectful; friends at work were discussing this with me the other day and we all agreed the Spider-Man movies were the ones that got it right on all levels - for the mainstream, for the fans, for box office as well as critical ratings.

The drama in SR was not in any way compelling, apart from compelling me never to want to see it again. Key elements of the story (the absence, the world moving on) were never explored, Superman was characterised as this weirdo who simply stared at everything in a hopeless effort to show emotion or character (he stares when told Lex has got out of jail, he stares into Lois's home, he hovers above earth and stares at it, etc) which turns him into a heartless non-entity.

SR also had plenty of cliche - the camped-up Luthor who was a cross between Blofeld and Dr Evil; gangster's moll Kitty with her fur coat and her little dog; the Messianic symbolism (which ended up dictating the plot); the repeated lines of dialogue from the Donner movies; the opening scene with thunder and lightning like one of those late-night TV movies. I didn't find any of that borrowed, recycled stuff to be compellingly original, artistic, imaginative or innovative.

bravo, bravo!
couldn't say any better myself.
and what singer care the most; the storyline of getting superman's ass kicked. clearly it's the only storyline that is outstanding and complete. all his thought is there. and that's the main point of the movie. the rest he just didn't care whether they are recycled, copied from other scripts or how to resolve them.
i'm still pissed off by it after almost 2 years.

 

[X Knight]

i agree.

IMO, the whole Jason/Bastard Son/Richard sub-plot really detracted from what should have been the main theme of of the movie........"A WORLD THAT HAS LEARNED TO LIVE WITHOUT SUPERMAN."

I mean, if you wanted to make a "thinking man's" movie.....a "deeper" and more philisophical superhero movie....and one that portrayed the essence of Superman's character........then that would have been the perfect theme....

You show a world that has clearly moved on since Superman's absence...a more cynical distrustful world....especially towards costumed-clad heroes. No, the ppl of the world don't need a Superman anymore....they don't see him as their savior.........instead they look more towards their fellow man, Lex Luthor as their savior.

You then CONTRAST this cynicism with the hope and idealistic optimism which Superman represents. You show that even in a world without hope or trust......one figure can still be that BEACON of hope......Superman can still be relevant in today's society.....

 

[mego joe]

i agree.

IMO, the whole Jason/Bastard Son/Richard sub-plot really detracted from what should have been the main theme of of the movie........"A WORLD THAT HAS LEARNED TO LIVE WITHOUT SUPERMAN."

I mean, if you wanted to make a "thinking man's" movie.....a "deeper" and more philisophical superhero movie....and one that portrayed the essence of Superman's character........then that would have been the perfect theme....

You show a world that has clearly moved on since Superman's absence...a more cynical distrustful world....especially towards costumed-clad heroes. No, the ppl of the world don't need a Superman anymore....they don't see him as their savior.........instead they look more towards their fellow man, Lex Luthor as their savior.

You then CONTRAST this cynicism with the hope and idealistic optimism which Superman represents. You show that even in a world without hope or trust......one figure can still be that BEACON of hope......Superman can still be relevant in today's society.....

Essentially, it became a "Lois has moved on w/o Superman, "boo hoo, let's watch Superman feel sorry for himself b/c he's screwed up his life" movie.

Yawn.

 

[skruloos]

When I go see a comic book film I want to see a good film but one that accurately adapts the material and the characters, otherwise, what's the point.

The point? Elevating the characters to a different level that has not been explored by the comics. I don't want to see something I've read a million times before.

WHich is?

Young enough to make the mistakes of youth but old enough to know better.

Me too. And Superman was unable to rise about his selfishness and he avoided his responsiblity when he ditched Lois w/o a goodbye. THat's high school my friend. THat's not 'rising above when the need call for it.' That's giving in to one's selfish emotions. You've got it backward.

But that's the point of a dramatic arc. When you put someone into an emotional story arc you can't have them start where they need to end up. "Rising above" is when you have the maturity to accept you've made a mistake and are able to move past it and work towards becoming a better person. All of which he does in this film.

Essentially, it was a coming of age story for a 30 year old man. THat just doesn't fit.

Why not? Because you say so? One thing I've learned is that I'm always learning. Just when I think I've figured things out, I'm pushed and made to grow. As a human being, we will always make mistakes and have the chance to learn from them.

But ditching your girlfriend that you are sexually involved with w/o a goodbye IS being a jerk. C'mon.

Depends I suppose on how exactly the relationship was prior.

And he proved that when it came down to deciding between his own feelings and Lois's feelings and justice for Lois, he determined that HE was more important.

And this is all prologue to the movie. It's the starting point to show his growth as a character.

And the problem is that's not SUPERMAN. Superboy or teenaged Clark? Yes. Superman? No.

Yeah. Pretty sure the title says Superman. Despite you wanting to discredit as such, it is. You don't think grown men make those kinds of mistakes?

Richard consequently when he had the opportunity to choose between his own feelings and those of Lois and Jason, put them first b/c he WAS heroic. Superman in a similar situation did not. Thus, Richard was more heroic than Jason.

In a similar situation? You mean when Superman decided to go back and save Metropolis instead of Lois? Or when after saving Metropolis, he flew back to save all three of them? Or how about, even after he almost died, he still flew back in his weakened state knowing that the island itself could possibly kill him?

THere should't be another character in a Superman story that outshines SUperman in morality and ethics. YOu've got the character ALL WRONG when you do this.

All wrong? Not really. It gives you a point-counter-point. It allows you to explore the character. It humanizes him. It also helps show why he believes humans are heroic and that he belongs with us. It's a perfect counter-point to show that despite all his power he can still make mistakes but he is also able to move past it and grow.

But hey, it seems like you like your character perfect and fairly one-note. Which is why you have such an obvious hard-on for Spider-man. This is also the problem I have with the majority of comic books. Few rarely explore emotional depth and different aspects of a character. Probably because there are hundreds of anal retentive fanboys who can't stand their characters doing something they don't agree with.

So here's a great compromise. You keep reading your comics where the character is pretty much stagnant and just like the way you like him. I'll take my chances with filmmakers who try to do something fresh with the characters and explore spaces and emotions not done in the 4 color world.

 

[skruloos]

Essentially, it became a "Lois has moved on w/o Superman, "boo hoo, let's watch Superman feel sorry for himself b/c he's screwed up his life" movie.

Yawn.

Except that at only a small part of the movie does Superman actually feel sorry for himself. After the rooftop scene, he realizes that Lois has moved on, makes peace with it, and goes about his business. There's what? Maybe 5 minutes of screen time where he actually mopes about?

 

[El Payaso]

Essentially, it became a "Lois has moved on w/o Superman, "boo hoo, let's watch Superman feel sorry for himself b/c he's screwed up his life" movie.

Yawn.

"Gone with the Wind" - Scarlet can't decide between two guys, boohoo, tomorrow will be another day.

"Psycho" - Girl stole the money, ah jeez she was killed.

Sloppy way to disdain any movie. Yawn indeed.

 

[mego joe]

The point? Elevating the characters to a different level that has not been explored by the comics. I don't want to see something I've read a million times before.

Just keep it in character. Superman was completely out of character in SR.

Young enough to make the mistakes of youth but old enough to know better.

Ok.

But that's the point of a dramatic arc. When you put someone into an emotional story arc you can't have them start where they need to end up. "Rising above" is when you have the maturity to accept you've made a mistake and are able to move past it and work towards becoming a better person. All of which he does in this film.

But it does not necessarily mean that he had to not say goodbye. You would get BETTER drama if he had said goodbye and Lois and the world STILL moved on. You also get empathy b/c he didn't screw up. He just did the right thing and he still has to come back to the same issues, but NOT because he left the wrong way.

SUperman is already supposed to be an example of the best of us and his mistakes are not going to be the ones made by immature high schoolers. THat doesn't make sense with the character- in any incarnation.

Why not? Because you say so? One thing I've learned is that I'm always learning. Just when I think I've figured things out, I'm pushed and made to grow. As a human being, we will always make mistakes and have the chance to learn from them.

No, because it WAS a coming of age story. That's what it was. The situation that is shown in SR is about BASIC common decency it's not about the finer points of maturity it's BASIC COMMON DECENCY which SHOULD be a given for SuperMAN.

Depends I suppose on how exactly the relationship was prior.

Well, they were involved sexually and I think that's all you need to know, otherwise Singer would have included it.

And this is all prologue to the movie. It's the starting point to show his growth as a character.

Which is why the movie is so ridiculous. THe set up is out of character. The story should never have happened b/c he wouldn't act that way. There is no solid story to make the viewer believe that he would ditch Lois like that and leave her in the lurch w/o a compelling and believable reason. Singer's reason? He's lonely and an emotional coward. That's just not Superman.

Yeah. Pretty sure the title says Superman. Despite you wanting to discredit as such, it is. You don't think grown men make those kinds of mistakes?

Sure they do. But they are not genuinely good caring mature and responsible- all things SUperman is supposed to be.

In a similar situation? You mean when Superman decided to go back and save Metropolis instead of Lois? Or when after saving Metropolis, he flew back to save all three of them? Or how about, even after he almost died, he still flew back in his weakened state knowing that the island itself could possibly kill him?

See, he finally became SUperman by the third act. The problem is he should have been Superman for the WHOLE movie not just the third act.

All wrong? Not really. It gives you a point-counter-point. It allows you to explore the character. It humanizes him. It also helps show why he believes humans are heroic and that he belongs with us. It's a perfect counter-point to show that despite all his power he can still make mistakes but he is also able to move past it and grow.

No. It was all wrong. If you don't understand that aspect of the character you don't understand the essence of Superman.

But hey, it seems like you like your character perfect and fairly one-note. Which is why you have such an obvious hard-on for Spider-man. This is also the problem I have with the majority of comic books. Few rarely explore emotional depth and different aspects of a character. Probably because there are hundreds of anal retentive fanboys who can't stand their characters doing something they don't agree with.

WHat makes you think I have an erection for Spider-Man? I think my wife would be quite surprised to hear that!

No. SUperman IS a fully developed. You don't have to have contradictions to be fully developed and 3-dimensional. It just seems that you have a problem with a Superman who REALLY is who he appears to be. Superman is not a character with skeletons in his closet. He's not conflicted morally. The point is he KNOWS what is right and what is wrong so the stories become explorations of how does Superman operate in a grey world and and adhere to his morals and ethics when people all around him are not.

The essence of the character is that when he first puts on that cape he has full conviction and understanding of his morals and ethics and understands common decency. He's not going put himself first, otherwise he would never have put the cape on in the first place, and secondly he's not going to screw over the woman he loves just to protect his own feelings.

So here's a great compromise. You keep reading your comics where the character is pretty much stagnant and just like the way you like him.

Guess you don't read comics then if that's what you believe.

I'll take my chances with filmmakers who try to do something fresh with the characters and explore spaces and emotions not done in the 4 color world.

If it's going to be about out-of-character deadbeat dad Superman then you can have him- it's not really Superman anyway.

 

[mego joe]

Except that at only a small part of the movie does Superman actually feel sorry for himself. After the rooftop scene, he realizes that Lois has moved on, makes peace with it, and goes about his business. There's what? Maybe 5 minutes of screen time where he actually mopes about?

Perhaps it was because NOTHING happened between that point and when Lex finally grows the island.

The point is that Superman never had to contend with the world moving on w/o him. SInger did not develop what promised to be the best aspect of the concept and turned it into him simply coming to grips with how badly he screwed up (self pity) and that he wasn't going to get Lois back.

It was just boring and a completely missed opportunity. The only character I could identify with was Richard. Superman was just portrayed as a screw up who finally learned the importance of saying goodbye.

 

[mego joe]

"Gone with the Wind" - Scarlet can't decide between two guys, boohoo, tomorrow will be another day.

"Psycho" - Girl stole the money, ah jeez she was killed.

Sloppy way to disdain any movie. Yawn indeed.

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

 

[skruloos]

Just keep it in character. Superman was completely out of character in SR.

And I don't think so. How he handled each situation presented to him in the movie was exactly as I thought he would handle it.

But it does not necessarily mean that he had to not say goodbye. You would get BETTER drama if he had said goodbye and Lois and the world STILL moved on. You also get empathy b/c he didn't screw up. He just did the right thing and he still has to come back to the same issues, but NOT because he left the wrong way.

Eh. Better drama? I don't think so. Less of a motivation for Lois to move on if it was handled the other way.

SUperman is already supposed to be an example of the best of us and his mistakes are not going to be the ones made by immature high schoolers. THat doesn't make sense with the character- in any incarnation.

And maybe that's why writers have a hard time finding fresh ways to tell a Superman story. And it makes sense in this incarnation. Sorry it doesn't makes sense for you.

No, because it WAS a coming of age story. That's what it was. The situation that is shown in SR is about BASIC common decency it's not about the finer points of maturity it's BASIC COMMON DECENCY which SHOULD be a given for SuperMAN.

Or it could be a good learning example. You're so stuck on the one small thing that happens as a prologue to the movie that it's not even in the movie itself. It's a great starting off point for the character to explore something that has not been explored before. In ANY medium.

Well, they were involved sexually and I think that's all you need to know, otherwise Singer would have included it.

But it's not like she was his girlfriend. Or that they were even committed to each other. Or even really what circumstances were that led to the events and afterwards.

Which is why the movie is so ridiculous. THe set up is out of character. The story should never have happened b/c he wouldn't act that way. There is no solid story to make the viewer believe that he would ditch Lois like that and leave her in the lurch w/o a compelling and believable reason. Singer's reason? He's lonely and an emotional coward. That's just not Superman.

He wouldn't act that way? Last I checked he was a fictional character and capable of acting any damn way a writer pleases. An emotional coward? I think it's been explored before. Why else would he have a fortress of Solitude to retreat to? And I think he had a great reason. That he couldn't break the heart of the woman he loved by saying goodbye to her. Did he make a mistake in not saying goodbye? Yes. But then again, that's good drama.

Sure they do. But they are not genuinely good caring mature and responsible- all things SUperman is supposed to be.

Wow. How one dimensional are the people you know. People make mistakes. People who think they're doing the right thing can make mistakes. People who do the right thing also hurt the people they love. It happens all the time. One mistake does not make a person irresponsible forever. Especially when you learn from that mistake.

See, he finally became SUperman by the third act. The problem is he should have been Superman for the WHOLE movie not just the third act.

That's what an emotional arc is. Sorry that he wasn't one dimensional the whole way through to satisfy you.

No. It was all wrong. If you don't understand that aspect of the character you don't understand the essence of Superman.

Oh I understand the character completely. I'm just not a slave to the comics. I actually like seeing the character develop and explored and treated as a person and not just a one dimensional character. I finally find a Superman that I can relate to, not just one I look up to as I did when I was a child.

WHat makes you think I have an erection for Spider-Man? I think my wife would be quite surprised to hear that!

Wow. Just wow.

No. SUperman IS a fully developed. You don't have to have contradictions to be fully developed and 3-dimensional. It just seems that you have a problem with a Superman who REALLY is who he appears to be. Superman is not a character with skeletons in his closet. He's not conflicted morally. The point is he KNOWS what is right and what is wrong so the stories become explorations of how does Superman operate in a grey world and and adhere to his morals and ethics when people all around him are not.

And that aspect is boring. BORING. Probably why it took his death for people to actually begin caring about the character again.

The essence of the character is that when he first puts on that cape he has full conviction and understanding of his morals and ethics and understands common decency. He's not going put himself first, otherwise he would never have put the cape on in the first place, and secondly he's not going to screw over the woman he loves just to protect his own feelings.

Except he doesn't do it out of his own feelings. He does it to spare Lois'. But also because yes, if he saw her, he might not actually be able to leave. He loves her that much. Yes. A tough choice. But a very human one.

Guess you don't read comics then if that's what you believe.

I pick and choose. I find most comics to be treading the same tired ground. I appreciate stories that actually try to do something and explore something new about the character. Sadly, because of needing to conform to fickly fanboys, it becomes hard for writers to do that. I like writers who explore the depths of a character's personality and push the boundaries.

If it's going to be about out-of-character deadbeat dad Superman then you can have him- it's not really Superman anyway.

Except...that it is. No matter how you try to discredit or disown it, the fact remains that he's Superman.