Superman Returns Was it really THAT bad?

[Super Kal]

But at what point does it show any kind of alienation? When Lois died? How did he feel like he wasn't part of this world? Or when meeting Lex? At what point did he feel alien or didn't belong? Can you go into more specifics? I'm truly curious to what would lead you to see alienation in those scenes.

that's just what I saw in it... it was very subdued, but it worked beautifully. I honestly don't want to explain it because it's too long to explain. I don't want to spend an hour explaining what I saw in the movie.

but besides that, yeah, this is just my opinion. Take it as you will.

 

[skruloos]

^^^ I've been wrongly quoted in that post. That wasn't me skruloos!

Fixed.

 

[Super Kal]

Your mistake would be to assume that I even care that you thought the movie was awful. That would imply that your opinion is actually worth more than a hill of dirt to me. It is not.

look, the only reason I said what I said was that a lot of people tend to take things way too personally on here.

 

[skruloos]

Okay, so that's your way of thinking.

So, if we can look at other superhero movies briefly. Under your way of thinking, there is nothing wrong with another Catwoman named Patience Phillips who has super-powers?

Correct. My problem with the film was its execution. It didn't treat the subject matter seriously and instead made it a moving music video. And while this works for music videos, it does not work for films.

And nothing wrong with killing off Cyclops in X3 and making Wolverine a leader? You would only want a quality of storytelling and not care about the actual changes themselves?

I had no problem with the concept killing of Cyclops in X3 despite him being one of my favorite X-men. My problem with it is that it was rushed with no emotional build-up or resolution. If the movie was going to leave that much out, then they should have just had Cyclops already dead at the beginning of the movie and go from there. Why should I care if Cyclops or Professor X dies in the movies? It's not like they die in the comics.

Would SR not worked better as an 'Elseworld' movie if it had been totally separately from the Donner movies, rather than borrowing ideas (air rescue, land scheme), bits of dialogue (flying is safest way to travel, truth and justice etc) and production design stylings (Marlon as Jor-El, ice-palace Fortress of Solitude).

The concept that you don't seem to get is that an Elseworld are stories that occur outside of continuity in the comics. The Donner movie, Smallville, even the various animated series are all "elseworld" type stories as they have no bearing or effect on the comic books.

Would you mind if it had used another design of FoS entirely? If Superman had been in a black and green costume? If he had power to summon lightning or change shape?

Another design for the FoS? Sure. Why not? A black and green costume? You mean like him having a black and silver one in the comics? Or maybe Blue Lighting Superman? If the story is told well, fine.

Where does adaptation end... and abomination begin?

Please. Now you're beginning to sound melodramatic. Abomination? We're talking about a fictional creation. Not mass genocide.

 

[skruloos]

that's just what I saw in it... it was very subdued, but it worked beautifully. I honestly don't want to explain it because it's too long to explain. I don't want to spend an hour explaining what I saw in the movie.

Ah. Of course. That's cool. 'Cause trying to bring up valid points and then not supporting them is SO par for the course on the interwebs.

Hey, if it's your opinion and you feel strongly about it, you should be able to express yourself in support of it. Otherwise, you're doing your opinion a disservice.

 

[mego joe]

I don't think there is truth to you claiming you are on a different level with knowledge of Superman. If you had as much knowledge as you claim you would realize that the comicbooks put Superman in similar positions and he makes similar choices on a weekly basis.

There have been so many different incarnations, for you to believe that you are the one that lays claim to know what Superman should and shouldn't be blows my mind.

I'm not saying I have a monopoly on it, that I'm the ONLY one- there are plenty of posters that feel the same way. But it's just as insulting to me for posters who love SR to insinuate that if you don't love it you don't really 'get it'- that I somehow am less intelligent or less refined b/c I don't undertand the 'art.' Or that we don't understand Superman's character or that we've 'put him in a box' b/c we expect him to behave consistently with his characterization. It's simply the opposite side of the argument.

Isn't the following quote just as insulting:

Lack of creativity? I don't think so. The limitations are the ones you, and your perceived knowledge and history of the character, are the limitations. You cannot imagine outside of the box you've constructed for yourself. Thank god there are people who can.

While SUperman makes choices in the comics that are in controversial areas, he's NEVER knowingly done Lois wrong in this manner. If you can find one, I'd be the first to admit I was wrong. But in all my years of reading and rereading Superman stories, I can't find a single tale that comes close to the substance of the events in SR.

Superman hurting Lois to save his own feelings.

That's the substance of Superman's mistake in SR that I find out of character. I've never experienced a similar story in any medium. If anyone can find one, I would love to see/read it.

 

[mego joe]

skruloos,

This is for you buddy.

I know we will never come to any agreement except to agree to disagree. But I think it's clear that we judge our comic book films on COMPELTELY different criteria.

You're fine with completely changing a character and divorcing it from the comics if it's a well told story, and that's fine. I prefer stories about the character I already know. I don't have in an interest in seeing the wheel re-invented. The only reason I see these films is b/c they ARE based on comics. My life is so buy with work, wife and kids, I don't have time or energy to see many other films. My interest stems from the comics, so my criteria is centered around the adherence to the comics.

You are not coming from that position, you are looking at it from the perspective of seeing something entirely new. That's fine. We are certainly not going to enjoy the same things. But my whole take on SR is that it IS a different version that is somehow fundamentally/ substantially different from ANY previous version, and I don't see how you could disagree with that.

 

[skruloos]

skruloos,

This is for you buddy.

Thanks, pal.

I know we will never come to any agreement except to agree to disagree. But I think it's clear that we judge our comic book films on COMPELTELY different criteria.

Could have fooled me.

You are not coming from that position, you are looking at it from the perspective of seeing something entirely new. That's fine. We are certainly not going to enjoy the same things. But my whole take on SR is that it IS a different version that is somehow fundamentally/ substantially different from ANY previous version, and I don't see how you could disagree with that.

I wouldn't disagree with that. Finally, a post where you don't try take some highroad about being a "truer" fan and realizing that there are different opinions and one is not necessarily wrong while the other is right, no matter how you might disagree with it.

I want the Superman I see to surprise me and to move me in ways that I haven't experienced in the character in the comics. Otherwise, I see no point in using the character. If I wanted a comic book version, I'd read the comic books. This is probably why adaptations of specific storylines bore me. I don't want to see the same comic I read but in full motion, like Sin City or 300 (for the most part). I want a new story that can't or hasn't been done in comics. Take these characters in directions they haven't gone in because that is unexplored territory. Other mediums are the perfect vehicle because a) it's not in continuity and b) you can play to the different strengths of the medium and thus tailor it to that.

As I've stated many times, the comics are good at what they do. But I don't go to the movies to see a comic book. I go to the movies to see a film. And I don't go to see a comic book character come to life, I go to see a film character. They are not inclusive of each other.

 

[skruloos]

I'm not saying I have a monopoly on it, that I'm the ONLY one- there are plenty of posters that feel the same way. But it's just as insulting to me for posters who love SR to insinuate that if you don't love it you don't really 'get it'- that I somehow am less intelligent or less refined b/c I don't undertand the 'art.' Or that we don't understand Superman's character or that we've 'put him in a box' b/c we expect him to behave consistently with his characterization. It's simply the opposite side of the argument.

Well maybe you shouldn't get all high and mighty and insist that your "deeper understanding" is the true version of Superman and someone won't have to come along and give you a taste of your own medicine in kind.

 

[mego joe]

Thanks, pal.


Could have fooled me.

I wouldn't disagree with that. Finally, a post where you don't try take some highroad about being a "truer" fan and realizing that there are different opinions and one is not necessarily wrong while the other is right, no matter how you might disagree with it.

I want the Superman I see to surprise me and to move me in ways that I haven't experienced in the character in the comics. Otherwise, I see no point in using the character. If I wanted a comic book version, I'd read the comic books. This is probably why adaptations of specific storylines bore me. I don't want to see the same comic I read but in full motion, like Sin City or 300 (for the most part). I want a new story that can't or hasn't been done in comics. Take these characters in directions they haven't gone in because that is unexplored territory. Other mediums are the perfect vehicle because a) it's not in continuity and b) you can play to the different strengths of the medium and thus tailor it to that.

So what about V for Vendetta and Watchmen?

As I've stated many times, the comics are good at what they do. But I don't go to the movies to see a comic book. I go to the movies to see a film. And I don't go to see a comic book character come to life, I go to see a film character. They are not inclusive of each other.

I like to see variations on comic stories but I think you have to keep the characterization and tone of the character and his/her stories. I don't think SR did that. I think that it fundamentally re-invented something about the character.

 

[mego joe]

Well maybe you shouldn't get all high and mighty and insist that your "deeper understanding" is the true version of Superman and someone won't have to come along and give you a taste of your own medicine in kind.

I've repeatedly stated that SR was a different version of the character. Some have agreed, some have disagreed. And I stand by this assertion. I think there are plenty of folks who feel the same way. I just find it incorrect to say the SR version has not been changed in some fundamental way that is different from the previous films and the comics. THat the character and the tone are different.

We're all arguing opinions and viewpoints. Sometimes the common ground is agreeing to disagree. But realize, I'm not the only one out there that would argue that some have a deeper understanding of the character. If this weren't true, SR would have been a much bette received film from the fan community and general audience.

 

[El Payaso]

I've repeatedly stated that SR was a different version of the character. Some have agreed, some have disagreed. And I stand by this assertion. I think there are plenty of folks who feel the same way. I just find it incorrect to say the SR version has not been changed in some fundamental way that is different from the previous films and the comics. THat the character and the tone are different.

This franchise's Superman has disobeyed Jor-El, Jonathan kent and reversed time, he quit his mission leaving Earth alone, he has had a personal revenge and abused of his super-powers to have it, he has manipulated Lois' mind because he felt like it. I'm sorry, but this Superman is way far from perfection. While in the public light he's an inspiration, when it comes to his personal life, he has made quite some questionable/wrong actions.

We're all arguing opinions and viewpoints. Sometimes the common ground is agreeing to disagree. But realize, I'm not the only one out there that would argue that some have a deeper understanding of the character. If this weren't true, SR would have been a much bette received film from the fan community and general audience.

Fan community? Everyone thinks their vision is the one.

General audience? Are you saying that general audience's deep knowledge of Superman affected the BO? I for once think there are rarely people who have a deep knowledge of comic characters amongst general audience.

Batman 89 had a killing Batman. It was based on the 1939 Kane era even when general audience doesn't know that. Thing is the ones who have this "deep knowledge" knows Batman hasn't killed for decades in comcis. But that didn't affect the reception of a movie one bit. It's still the most successful Batman movie to date.

No matter how many or important changes a comic movie has, if it has enough action, punches, hot girls and explosions they will look at it.

 

[mego joe]

This franchise's Superman has disobeyed Jor-El, Jonathan kent and reversed time, he quit his mission leaving Earth alone, he has had a personal revenge and abused of his super-powers to have it, he has manipulated Lois' mind because he felt like it. I'm sorry, but this Superman is way far from perfection. While in the public light he's an inspiration, when it comes to his personal life, he has made quite some questionable/wrong actions.

We've argued this before. We don't need to rehash our different interpretations of the Reeve films.

Fan community? Everyone thinks their vision is the one.

General audience? Are you saying that general audience's deep knowledge of Superman affected the BO? I for once think there are rarely people who have a deep knowledge of comic characters amongst general audience.

Quite the opposite. But to the GA, Superman is not a deadbeat dad. Or even an out of wedlock dad.

Batman 89 had a killing Batman. It was based on the 1939 Kane era even when general audience doesn't know that. Thing is the ones who have this "deep knowledge" knows Batman hasn't killed for decades in comcis. But that didn't affect the reception of a movie one bit. It's still the most successful Batman movie to date.


No matter how many or important changes a comic movie has, if it has enough action, punches, hot girls and explosions they will look at it.

I don't think that is necessarily true, but I understand what you are getting at.

 

[El Payaso]

We've argued this before. We don't need to rehash our different interpretations of the Reeve films.

Tell me where am I interpreting.

Superman has disobeyed Jor-El: You can’t change human history. Superman reverses time.
Superman has disobeyed Jonathan Kent: You’re here for a reason but it’s not personal gratification (make touchdowns). Superman reverses time because Lois died.
Superman quits his mission leaving Earth alone: As seen in Superman II.
Superman has a personal revenge and abused of his super-powers to have it: With Rocky at the diner.
Superman has manipulated Lois' mind without her permission: As seen on the amnesia kiss.

Those are facts (I’m not even saying how good or bad they are), they just happened on the previous movies.

Quite the opposite. But to the GA, Superman is not a deadbeat dad. Or even an out of wedlock dad.

Well, after self-proclaiming expert on Superman, what stops you to become expert on what general audiences think or know without further proof to support your statement.

I’m sure some people thought Superman would never have sex with Lois out of wedlock and BAM! Superman II. Ah, but then he deleetd her memory so it’s pretty much like it never happened I guess. He’s still clean to the world.

EDIT:

And GA had no troubles accepting that: Joker was the Waynes' killer, Duacrd and ra's are the same person, Ra's is Batman's mentor and trainer, radioactive spider from Spiderman is not radioactive anymore, the spider-webshooter doesn't exist, Doc Ock had a wife, Bruce Banner's name was David Banner (on the TV series).

That speaks volumes about people's "deep" knowledge and/or about the success of a movie linked to accuracy to the original source.

I don't think that is necessarily true, but I understand what you are getting at.

Necessity of truth or not, it’s what happened. But yes, it’s pretty much – as almost everything in life – a case to case issue. Some movies have lots of actions and dissapoint, some are accurate to comic books and are pure crap, some are re-interpretationms and are successful. Anyone in Hollywood can tell you there’s no formula to make a movie that most people will like.

 

[Nirvana]

Superman Returns, for me, is like having a brother or sister to just screwed up in life: You hate them for what they did, wish they thought better about their decision, yet, you love them very much and it pains to you see their mistake

 

[skruloos]

We're all arguing opinions and viewpoints. Sometimes the common ground is agreeing to disagree. But realize, I'm not the only one out there that would argue that some have a deeper understanding of the character. If this weren't true, SR would have been a much bette received film from the fan community and general audience.

I don't think it has anything to do with deeper understanding. The "deeper understanding" is the same BS argument that fanboys raise because they simply can't fathom that a "true blue fan" like them would actually accept, like, or possibly prefer the movie.

What it comes down to is preference, not some egocentric idea that you know more than someone else.

 

[X-Maniac]

Correct. My problem with the film was its execution. It didn't treat the subject matter seriously and instead made it a moving music video. And while this works for music videos, it does not work for films.

So pop/dance music is not okay in movies? Are you saying that a non-classical/orchestral score is a large part of what's wrong with Catwoman? Clearly they were aiming for a pop-culture feel, as they were when they used pop tracks in Fantastic Four.

I had no problem with the concept killing of Cyclops in X3 despite him being one of my favorite X-men. My problem with it is that it was rushed with no emotional build-up or resolution. If the movie was going to leave that much out, then they should have just had Cyclops already dead at the beginning of the movie and go from there. Why should I care if Cyclops or Professor X dies in the movies? It's not like they die in the comics.

It could have worked to have Cyclops already dead, though better simply to have said he had left the X-Men after Jean's apparent death in X2. I don't know if either would have created any better a response from fans of Cyclops. But I don't recall critics saying negative things about the death of Cyclops or Xavier or, for that matter, about Rogue's decision to take the cure. I think the problem was more that too many plates were spinning within a 1hr 44mins movie - some characters should have been removed to give more depth to Angel, Colossus, Phoenix and Storm. But I find it's possible to join the dots and extrapolate information/possibilities. And X2 did have minor undeveloped roles (Artie, Jubilee, Siryn, Kitty, Deathstrike, Jason/Mastermind, Colossus, Jones) and very little depth to many of the main characters - Cyclops was absent for most of the movie, Storm got a moment with Nightcrawler on the jet and nothing else in terms of character scenes.

The concept that you don't seem to get is that an Elseworld are stories that occur outside of continuity in the comics. The Donner movie, Smallville, even the various animated series are all "elseworld" type stories as they have no bearing or effect on the comic books.

I get the concept of Elseworld. I like Smallville, which is very much 'non-canon.' But there is a crossover effect - I think some ideas from Donner (the ice-palace FoS) ended up being used in the comics, some ideas from X-Men have gone back into the comics too. And in fact the X-Men movies inspired the launch of the Ultimate X-Men comics.

I think the problem with SR goes beyond its respect for, and accuracy to, the established versions of the character in comics or previous movies.

The Superman in SR does not engender empathy because he appears cold and horrible. He leaves with no goodbye to a woman who is clearly in love with him and ends up bearing his child. His silent departure from earth makes him look self-absorbed, selfish and heartless.

Lois also appears odd - she is so hurt and bitter that she writes a prize-winning article and yet she moves on quickly enough for her next partner to believe he is the father of her child (so, within a few weeks, she has met someone else and had an intimate relationship with him). Did she fling herself at the next available guy, on the rebound? Do we know what really happened? And do we care? Superman is lost and alone by his own making, and Lois is not lost or alone at all. Neither deserves any compassion.

Furthermore, Superman's own actions create his own problems. And his character does not learn anything, aside from that Krypton really is dead. No one suspected it was anything but dead before SR. He is just as lost and alienated and alone as at the start of the movie. The Fortress is violated and dead (and no longer a secure place to be!), the crystal link to his father is gone, his girlfriend is with another man, and the child he finds he has is in a happy family environment. What has he gained, what has he learned? He has a kid and can't suddenly start popping in to the house to give Jason flying lessons - Richard thinks Jason is his own son. What are we left with at the end of the movie, where is the character growth? The world has indeed moved on, Superman is indeed alone, just the same as at the start of the movie.

Another design for the FoS? Sure. Why not? A black and green costume? You mean like him having a black and silver one in the comics? Or maybe Blue Lighting Superman? If the story is told well, fine.

I agree a well-told story is the bottom line. But i don't think SR had that.

Please. Now you're beginning to sound melodramatic. Abomination? We're talking about a fictional creation. Not mass genocide.

I never meant SR was an abomination. But some would say that Catwoman was. And I'd argue that Ghost Rider was a real horror as well. There are some who believe X3 is one of the worst movies ever made, if not THE worst. That's melodrama!

 

[skruloos]

So pop/dance music is not okay in movies? Are you saying that a non-classical/orchestral score is a large part of what's wrong with Catwoman? Clearly they were aiming for a pop-culture feel, as they were when they used pop tracks in Fantastic Four.

No. I have no problem with the kind of music in the film. It's more of the sensibility behind the music video as a storytelling form. The music video is usually about exaggerated camera moves, faster editing, and visual flash. More than anything, it tells its story through music and visual style more than subtext, emotion, or dialogue. Now, for what it is and what it tries to be, music videos are very succcessful. However, for long form narrative (i.e. a film) it has its own set of issues. Not to say that a long form music video could not be artistic. Koyaanisqatsi is a perfect example where this works.

It could have worked to have Cyclops already dead, though better simply to have said he had left the X-Men after Jean's apparent death in X2. I don't know if either would have created any better a response from fans of Cyclops. But I don't recall critics saying negative things about the death of Cyclops or Xavier or, for that matter, about Rogue's decision to take the cure. I think the problem was more that too many plates were spinning within a 1hr 44mins movie - some characters should have been removed to give more depth to Angel, Colossus, Phoenix and Storm. But I find it's possible to join the dots and extrapolate information/possibilities. And X2 did have minor undeveloped roles (Artie, Jubilee, Siryn, Kitty, Deathstrike, Jason/Mastermind, Colossus, Jones) and very little depth to many of the main characters - Cyclops was absent for most of the movie, Storm got a moment with Nightcrawler on the jet and nothing else in terms of character scenes.

I agree with this assessment. X3 suffered from the "kitchen sink" syndrome. They just tried to pile too much on. I have no problem with minor undeveloped roles since the overall plot does not rely on them. In X3 the story was never going to be about Cyclops. I accepted that and I was okay with that. My problem was that it was fairly obvious that he was even in the movie just to tie up loose ends to to garner some kind of emotional impact (unearned) with Jean killing him. If they really wanted to make an emotional plot point about this they would have developed his character in the beginning of the movie more. But as it is, they bring him onscreen only to die. Why waste that screentime at all? At least Xavier got some development to make his death worthwhile.

I get the concept of Elseworld. I like Smallville, which is very much 'non-canon.' But there is a crossover effect - I think some ideas from Donner (the ice-palace FoS) ended up being used in the comics, some ideas from X-Men have gone back into the comics too. And in fact the X-Men movies inspired the launch of the Ultimate X-Men comics.

Yes but they are not mutually inclusive of each other. Sure there is cross-pollination but they are separate from each other and exist in their own universes.

The Superman in SR does not engender empathy because he appears cold and horrible. He leaves with no goodbye to a woman who is clearly in love with him and ends up bearing his child. His silent departure from earth makes him look self-absorbed, selfish and heartless.

I can almost agree with this except that it requires too much speculation on the part of the viewer. I base my opinion of the movie on what is actually shown. What I see in the movie is someone who deeply regrets his mistake and who realizes that you can never truly go home again. You could possibly say that the Superman before the events of SR does not engender empathy, but nowhere in the movie itself does he actually appear cold or horrible.

Lois also appears odd - she is so hurt and bitter that she writes a prize-winning article and yet she moves on quickly enough for her next partner to believe he is the father of her child (so, within a few weeks, she has met someone else and had an intimate relationship with him). Did she fling herself at the next available guy, on the rebound? Do we know what really happened? And do we care? Superman is lost and alone by his own making, and Lois is not lost or alone at all. Neither deserves any compassion.

I find Lois' reactions completely realistic. You've never heard of a rebound? Someone who has been hurt so much by the person they love that they move on to find comfort in another person's arms, and in most cases is a person who closely resembles their ex? Of course Lois appears odd. People do strange things when love or love lost is involved. It's called human nature.

Furthermore, Superman's own actions create his own problems. And his character does not learn anything, aside from that Krypton really is dead. No one suspected it was anything but dead before SR. He is just as lost and alienated and alone as at the start of the movie. The Fortress is violated and dead (and no longer a secure place to be!), the crystal link to his father is gone, his girlfriend is with another man, and the child he finds he has is in a happy family environment. What has he gained, what has he learned? He has a kid and can't suddenly start popping in to the house to give Jason flying lessons - Richard thinks Jason is his own son. What are we left with at the end of the movie, where is the character growth? The world has indeed moved on, Superman is indeed alone, just the same as at the start of the movie.

His character growth? He learns that yes, Lois has moved on. And he learns to be okay with that. He realizes the ramifications of his actions and he accepts that responsibility. He learns that he is not alone in the universe as their IS another Kryptonian on Earth (well, at least half). He also realizes the importance of respecting Lois and Richard's relationship and their relationship with Jason so we wisely steps aside and does not interfere or try to break the home. He learns some of the harder lessons of being a human and having lost the person they love. Personal growth does not have to mean that he gets everything he wants. In most cases, there is MORE growth when you don't get what you want and have to deal with it.

I agree a well-told story is the bottom line. But i don't think SR had that.

Well seems to me from reading your post that you're hung up on the prologue that doesn't even occur in the movie and letting that set the tone for the rest of the film. That would make it infinitely harder to see the value in the story.

I never meant SR was an abomination. But some would say that Catwoman was. And I'd argue that Ghost Rider was a real horror as well. There are some who believe X3 is one of the worst movies ever made, if not THE worst. That's melodrama!

And there's the problem with fanboyism. Everything becomes a "life or death" situation.

 

[X-Maniac]

No. I have no problem with the kind of music in the film. It's more of the sensibility behind the music video as a storytelling form. The music video is usually about exaggerated camera moves, faster editing, and visual flash. More than anything, it tells its story through music and visual style more than subtext, emotion, or dialogue. Now, for what it is and what it tries to be, music videos are very succcessful. However, for long form narrative (i.e. a film) it has its own set of issues. Not to say that a long form music video could not be artistic. Koyaanisqatsi is a perfect example where this works.

That makes some sense. I don't think Catwoman was entirely like a music video though. The music usage is, for me, not a major problem with the movie. The plot was silly (a toxic facecream, no worthy villain), the costume overly stylised and impractical (big ears, slashed pants, open-toed shoes), and Halle sometimes failed to convince as the meek office worker.

I agree with this assessment. X3 suffered from the "kitchen sink" syndrome. They just tried to pile too much on. I have no problem with minor undeveloped roles since the overall plot does not rely on them. In X3 the story was never going to be about Cyclops. I accepted that and I was okay with that. My problem was that it was fairly obvious that he was even in the movie just to tie up loose ends to to garner some kind of emotional impact (unearned) with Jean killing him. If they really wanted to make an emotional plot point about this they would have developed his character in the beginning of the movie more. But as it is, they bring him onscreen only to die. Why waste that screentime at all? At least Xavier got some development to make his death worthwhile.

I think James Marsden's decision to move across to Superman Returns created a no-win situation for Cyclops, especially as Cyclops had already had a minor part in the second movie as Wolverine began to dominate more. The X3 team tried to give Cyclops fans something rather than nothing, but it wasn't enough of that something because it happened too quickly. If it had been explained that he had left the team, there would be a problem explaining why he wasn't contacted by Storm or Xavier to come back once Jean had returned, as he would be possibly able to reach her most of all. So, it's a very hard decision. Fox apparently had originally wanted Cyclops to have died at some point between X2 and X3, and I'm not sure about that either. However, it's safe to say Cyclops was meant only as a plot device and i don't think anyone was meant to feel anything, as he was a device to drive the Phoenix; a reason Jean/Phoenix couldn't return to a mansion because she had destroyed her lover and her mentor and had passed a point of no return. In theory, that sounds okay!

Yes but they are not mutually inclusive of each other. Sure there is cross-pollination but they are separate from each other and exist in their own universes.

Sure. But some would argue you should respect the material you are basing the movie on, or what's the point of using a source. Why not just invent a superhero whom you could portray in any way without risk of upsetting anyone?

I can almost agree with this except that it requires too much speculation on the part of the viewer. I base my opinion of the movie on what is actually shown. What I see in the movie is someone who deeply regrets his mistake and who realizes that you can never truly go home again. You could possibly say that the Superman before the events of SR does not engender empathy, but nowhere in the movie itself does he actually appear cold or horrible.

Do you think we saw that he deeply regrets his mistake? Do you think he truly realises he made a mistake? Or is he simply acting on an entirely different set of rules to anyone else? To me he didn't seem a flawed human but more a selfish 'god' who, as far as emotion is concerned, is entirely disconnected from human concerns.

He seemed mean and horrible when he threw a ball too far for his own dog, that's for sure. Other than that, it's the vague events before the movie that make him seem cold and horrible.

I find Lois' reactions completely realistic. You've never heard of a rebound? Someone who has been hurt so much by the person they love that they move on to find comfort in another person's arms, and in most cases is a person who closely resembles their ex? Of course Lois appears odd. People do strange things when love or love lost is involved. It's called human nature.

I'm not sure Richard closely resembles Superman. Richard is heroic, dependable, noble, caring and always around. The Superman of the movie is often the opposite. I'd argue that Lois rebounded into someone who would always be around, in contrast to someone who was previously only occasionally around and then suddenly never around. For five years.

His character growth? He learns that yes, Lois has moved on. And he learns to be okay with that. He realizes the ramifications of his actions and he accepts that responsibility. He learns that he is not alone in the universe as their IS another Kryptonian on Earth (well, at least half). He also realizes the importance of respecting Lois and Richard's relationship and their relationship with Jason so we wisely steps aside and does not interfere or try to break the home. He learns some of the harder lessons of being a human and having lost the person they love. Personal growth does not have to mean that he gets everything he wants. In most cases, there is MORE growth when you don't get what you want and have to deal with it.

We never do see him deal with it though. What now for the character, who is as lonely and alienated as ever. He seemed better off when he had the Fortress, Jor-El's voice/advice and Lois. All that has gone. He now has a son he can't ever really be with. It doesn't seem very satisfying.

Well seems to me from reading your post that you're hung up on the prologue that doesn't even occur in the movie and letting that set the tone for the rest of the film. That would make it infinitely harder to see the value in the story.

The set-up for the movie has to be crucial, it's the foundations, the map for the story. Without a good set-up, the story falters. There is a vague backstory that could be perceived to make Superman look cold and selfish. The opening scene should set the tone and theme - we see Lex swindling an old woman. How does that set the scene and tone and theme of the movie? Seeing Superman go to Krypton might set the tone, even better if he had say goodbye to Lois and told her he was going and might be away a long time, perhaps for ever. How does the audience begin to care for a character who doesn't seem to care and who seems utterly removed from humanity and earthly life, to the point he can just disappear without a word to Lois?

And there's the problem with fanboyism. Everything becomes a "life or death" situation.

I've never liked fanboyism, despite being a long-time comicbook reader. But I still found the portrayals in SR to be unrelatable.

There is no correct answer. Singer wanted Superman to be either a deeply flawed human or a fallen saviour/god, and not everyone will agree that Superman feels right when depicted as either of those things.

 

[skruloos]

That makes some sense. I don't think Catwoman was entirely like a music video though. The music usage is, for me, not a major problem with the movie. The plot was silly (a toxic facecream, no worthy villain), the costume overly stylised and impractical (big ears, slashed pants, open-toed shoes), and Halle sometimes failed to convince as the meek office worker.

Like it said, it was the sensibility of a music video. It was superficial and clearly style over substance.

Sure. But some would argue you should respect the material you are basing the movie on, or what's the point of using a source. Why not just invent a superhero whom you could portray in any way without risk of upsetting anyone?

Well here's the thing about it. A character is a lot more vague and open to interpretation than a storyline is, particularly with a character who has existed as long as Superman. And in drama, and general storytelling, one of the best questions to tackle is: "what would happen if this character found themselves in a situation that is completely foreign to them? how would they deal?" In an emotional story, sometimes the question will upset someone. But alas, that is the price of risky storytelling. Me? I'm all about it. Great art doesn't get created by appeasing a committee.

Do you think we saw that he deeply regrets his mistake? Do you think he truly realises he made a mistake? Or is he simply acting on an entirely different set of rules to anyone else? To me he didn't seem a flawed human but more a selfish 'god' who, as far as emotion is concerned, is entirely disconnected from human concerns.

I think that when he peeped on Lois and family that he showed regret. I think the scene where he takes Lois for a night fly shows his realization that he's lost her and that he needs to concetrate on greater problems. I think he goes in to that scene with the hope of rekindling something but thinks twice about it and instead justifies why he has returned to help Earth and not why he attempts to be back in Lois' life.

He seemed mean and horrible when he threw a ball too far for his own dog, that's for sure. Other than that, it's the vague events before the movie that make him seem cold and horrible.

Which doesn't change the fact that as displayed in the movie, he has no horrible actions.

I'm not sure Richard closely resembles Superman. Richard is heroic, dependable, noble, caring and always around. The Superman of the movie is often the opposite. I'd argue that Lois rebounded into someone who would always be around, in contrast to someone who was previously only occasionally around and then suddenly never around. For five years.

At what point in the movie (remember, not in the prologue) does Superman not seem heroic, dependable or caring? I mean, I can understand the "previously occasionally around" part but hey, it's like marrying a doctor who is always on call. Seems to me that Richard embodies everything that Lois saw in Superman. Of course, that view was shattered when he left and she rebounded but she still found someone who was similar to the guy. He even flies!

We never do see him deal with it though. What now for the character, who is as lonely and alienated as ever. He seemed better off when he had the Fortress, Jor-El's voice/advice and Lois. All that has gone. He now has a son he can't ever really be with. It doesn't seem very satisfying.

Well, personal growth doesn't mean roses and sunshine. Coming to terms with a bad situation isn't all that great but at least there is closure. I think that the knowledge of having another Kryptonian out there, even if he can't be one is satisfying. It shows that there is another of "his kind" in the world. And yes, he doesn't have Lois. But hey. That's life. You can never go home again. The worse ending would have been if Lois forgave him and they got back together. The movie ends with his coming to terms with the consequences of his actions and accepting responsibility. He doesn't try to change it. He doesn't try to get Lois back. He doesn't try to outdo or somehow demean Richard. Yes, he might be alone, but I think as a character he's grown.

The set-up for the movie has to be crucial, it's the foundations, the map for the story. Without a good set-up, the story falters. There is a vague backstory that could be perceived to make Superman look cold and selfish. The opening scene should set the tone and theme - we see Lex swindling an old woman. How does that set the scene and tone and theme of the movie? Seeing Superman go to Krypton might set the tone, even better if he had say goodbye to Lois and told her he was going and might be away a long time, perhaps for ever. How does the audience begin to care for a character who doesn't seem to care and who seems utterly removed from humanity and earthly life, to the point he can just disappear without a word to Lois?

I agree that the movie would have been better served with the Krypton sequence as originally scripted. However, I don't think the audience has to immediately care for our protagonist. That's the job of the movie to tell.

Again, it serves as a metaphor. Just as Superman needs to earn the trust of the world (and mostly Lois) back, so does he have to earn the audiences trust. And in this story, and in fact, in a lot of stories about regrets and mistake, it's not often about the reasons for making the mistake, it's about how to rectify it. It's about what the person is willing to do to work through it. That's where the drama is.

I've never liked fanboyism, despite being a long-time comicbook reader. But I still found the portrayals in SR to be unrelatable.

To each his own. I related to it on a very human and visceral level.

There is no correct answer. Singer wanted Superman to be either a deeply flawed human or a fallen saviour/god, and not everyone will agree that Superman feels right when depicted as either of those things.

And no one has to. Again, that's the beauty of art. I've seen Superman as a racist. I've seen him act rudely to Lois and Jimmy. I've seen him as reluctant Savior. I don't have to like every interpretation of him but I realize that they are significant in their own right and are part of his history.

 

[mego joe]

Tell me where am I interpreting.

Below, I've BOLDED the facts whose meanings we interpret differently. Because we've argued this before, I know how you interpret these events.

Superman has disobeyed Jor-El: You can’t change human history. Superman reverses time.
Superman has disobeyed Jonathan Kent: You’re here for a reason but it’s not personal gratification (make touchdowns). Superman reverses time because Lois died.
Superman quits his mission leaving Earth alone: As seen in Superman II.
Superman has a personal revenge and abused of his super-powers to have it: With Rocky at the diner.
Superman has manipulated Lois' mind without her permission: As seen on the amnesia kiss.

Those are facts (I’m not even saying how good or bad they are), they just happened on the previous movies.

Now the details!
Superman has disobeyed Jor-El: You can’t change human history. Superman reverses time.

IIRC, you consider this to be a mistake for him to disobey Jor-El. Now I ask you- Why is this wrong? I see it as the right thing to do, not the wrong thing to do.


Superman has disobeyed Jonathan Kent: You’re here for a reason but it’s not personal gratification (make touchdowns). Superman reverses time because Lois died.

Interestingly, Jonathan Kent's admonission is to Clark as a teenager and Pa Kent ALSO says You were put here for a reason. At the point in the movie when Lois dies Clark also recalls his feelings when Pa died: All my powers and I couldn't save him. Juxtaposed with Jor-El's mandate and Pa's assurance that he's here for a reason, it is abundatnly clear that at that moment he truly understands that his reason for being here is helping others, and because he is emotionally human, helping those he loves. This is something Jor-El could not forsee happening- Kal-El (Kryptonian) becoming Clark (Human.) Any of us would do whatever was in our power to save a loved one, and since Superman has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, he can do a lot more than we might be able to. But a paramedic could do more than you or I, and we wouldn't begrudge a paramedic using all at his or her disposal to save a loved one would we? Why should we begrudge Superman the same thing if there are no further repercussions?
In my interpretation of the film, Jor-El simply doesn't understand what it is to be human and can't imagine that Kal-El would become emotionally human, and therefore can't understand that Kal-El would choose to make a human decision as outlined by Pa Kent- using his powers for a reason, helping others based on human morality.

Superman quits his mission leaving Earth alone: As seen in Superman II.

This situation is more complex, IMO. What we have is Superman whose is being written in the mode of the comics of the day in which a relationship with Lois and his career as Superman are mutually exclusive. The film dramatizes this aspect of the status quo in a way unseen in comics.

This question to ask then is the above statement the wrong thing to do? Yes, as he learns his mission as Superman is more important than a personal committed relationship as a husband to Lois.

To me the way in which it comes about is extremely important in interpretting the meaning. Superman does not quit being Superman without a significant exterior stimulus. This is of course Lois finally discovering that Clark is really Superman. At this point, Superman has to make a choice- continue being Superman and just deny his feelings for Lois OR go 100% and commit to being Lois, b/c the situations are mutually exclusive according to Jor-El and his own sensibility- once his ID is uncovered his friends and family are endngered and the only way to eliminate the danger is to eliminate Superman.

The full answer is that, yes, the world needs Superman, but in the given situation, he went about committing to Lois in the right way.

Superman has a personal revenge and abused of his super-powers to have it: With Rocky at the diner.

I think others have argued this point well enough in the past that it can be seen as Superman teaching a bully a lesson. He doesn't hurt Rocky, he doesn't beat him to a pulp, he simply teaches Rocky a lesson- it's not nice to bully others. It's like the old Charles Atlas ad in the comics. It may SEEM like personal revenge, but he in no way gives Rocky the same treatment Rocky gave the powerless Clark.

Superman has manipulated Lois' mind without her permission: As seen on the amnesia kiss.

This is your favorite, I know. For me it simply comes down to motivation. SUperman uses the amnesia kiss so that Lois can continue on with a regular life w/o the burden of her knowledge of losing Superman's commitment to her as a spouse. Is is bad writing? Probably. Would we see it in a SUperman film today? No. But his motivation is intact and it follows with the comics of the time which depict a Superman that knows best. Mistake? No.

Well, after self-proclaiming expert on Superman, what stops you to become expert on what general audiences think or know without further proof to support your statement.

I'm only going on my personal experience based on conversations I've had who've seen the film. I've only met one person who actually liked it. THey are all definitely General Audience folks. Based on the divided fan base here and my experiences combined with what I've read online- the General Audience seems just as divided on Superman Returns as the fanboys (us).

I’m sure some people thought Superman would never have sex with Lois out of wedlock and BAM! Superman II. Ah, but then he deleetd her memory so it’s pretty much like it never happened I guess. He’s still clean to the world.

Perhaps. But perhaps it was the fact that when they had sex it was obviously part of a committed relationship. That his honest intentions were for him to be with her.

EDIT:

And GA had no troubles accepting that: Joker was the Waynes' killer, Duacrd and ra's are the same person, Ra's is Batman's mentor and trainer, radioactive spider from Spiderman is not radioactive anymore, the spider-webshooter doesn't exist, Doc Ock had a wife, Bruce Banner's name was David Banner (on the TV series).


That speaks volumes about people's "deep" knowledge and/or about the success of a movie linked to accuracy to the original source.

The point you make is that comsmetic changes don't make a big a difference as changes of substance. None of that really matters. With Superman the general audience already has a pre-conceived notion of Superman as a genuinely good, honest and caring person who puts the good of others above his own- especially Lois Lane. The events in the backstory of SR violates this conception.

My argument all along is that the changes in Superman Returns are changes of substance and not cosmetic changes. I can only go on what I've experienced from the above mentioned conversations and read on the internet.

Necessity of truth or not, it’s what happened. But yes, it’s pretty much – as almost everything in life – a case to case issue. Some movies have lots of actions and dissapoint, some are accurate to comic books and are pure crap, some are re-interpretationms and are successful. Anyone in Hollywood can tell you there’s no formula to make a movie that most people will like.

True. But I think you have to maintain the essence of the character and the tone of stories especially with characters that have a life well beyond that of the comics. Superman is an icon. People are already familiar with him. They may not be intimately acquainted with him, but they still feel like they know him. To reinterpret a character like SR has, is bound to go over with mixed response b/c it's violating the general audience's pre-conceived notion of SUperman as a genuinely good, honest and caring person- especially when it comes to Lois.

 

[mego joe]

Superman Returns, for me, is like having a brother or sister to just screwed up in life: You hate them for what they did, wish they thought better about their decision, yet, you love them very much and it pains to you see their mistake

Not a bad analogy at all.

 

[mego joe]

I don't think it has anything to do with deeper understanding. The "deeper understanding" is the same BS argument that fanboys raise because they simply can't fathom that a "true blue fan" like them would actually accept, like, or possibly prefer the movie.

What it comes down to is preference, not some egocentric idea that you know more than someone else.

I think it goes both ways. Some folks despite having a 'deeper understanding' of the characte may prefer it just b/c of personal preferences in types of characters or styles of storytelling.

But I believe that some folks don't have as deep an understanding of a particular character and will accept a story without questioning it further.

 

[mego joe]

Nice posts X-man.

 

[memo]

i think its safe to say, that when we first heard what singer and crew had in mind about SR, and that is to pay homage to the donnor version, we all thought, "yea! great! make it happen!" and singer did just that. perfectly. the only problem, was that it was kind of long and boring. and its funny, because right after the movie came out, i'd say for the most part fans loved it. we did. i think it was a combination of finally getting the movie, and seeing superman back on the big screen again. but over time we've turned on it. which is fine. i think maybe we're just seeing it alittle more clearly. but nobody can say that it was truely as bad as the hulk or daredevil or any of the other poor superman and batman movies of the past. i dont know. thats just me. cuz those movies sucked. hahaha.