Superman Returns Why Don't Some Superman Fans Like Superman Returns?

[Angeloz]

If people thought SR was a great movie, they just need to watch more movies...

... to realise it's even greater.

Angeloz

 

[sithgoblin]

Surely Batman needs a Batbaby!

Great idea, huh?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

You're pleading humility just to state your personal opinions are a fact.

Son, we're not that dumb...

I even agree with El Payaso on this one ( which is extremely rare.... )

Personal opinions are NOT fact. Just because you think a movie is great/bad does not make that true for everyone else. Even if everybody else in the world thinks a movie is crap, if you truly enjoyed the movie and thought it was great for you........then the movie was great FOR YOU. Not for me, not for the next person........not even for the pitbull high on angel dust running around the neighborhood in a Wonder Woman outfit.........................it was great FOR YOU.

And, vice versa if you think the movie is crap.

I do concede that it is possible to enjoy/be entertained by a movie that you feel is bad/stupid.........

It's like watching a really silly/stupid comedy movie, or an equally silly/stupid horror movie......you know that it is bad......yet you still watch it....and are entertained for what it is worth. That is certainly possible.

However, to another person, said comedy/horror film may be the best movie ever! It's all a matter of opinion.

Agreed on both accounts, there is a difference between being entertained by a crappy movie and liking one you think is quality. A BIG difference.

If people thought SR was a great movie, they just need to watch more movies.

I have watched more movies than you could imagine.

 

[El Payaso]

Hey I have an idea. Why don't we give Batman a son too? That's something that's never been done on film before!

Yes it has. Comics, cartoons and movies:

Robin.

And Batman character has nothing to do with paternity as Donner's Superman has.

If people thought SR was a great movie, they just need to watch more movies.

If people thought SR was a bad movie, they just need to watch more movies.

 

[dr collossus]

Son, we're not that dumb...

First of all, don't call me son. You don't know me, it's disrespectful, and you wouldn't call someone you didn't know 'son' to their face (I hope) so don't do it on here.

You're pleading humility just to state your personal opinions are a fact.

Second of all, the way I see it, most of what the majority of people do on here is state their opinions as fact (which is hardly what I was doing) and then belittle and dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as doing exactly that. As much as you all try to pretend to respect each other, the general attitude of people who post on here is that the opinions of themselves and those that agree with them are fact and the opinions of those who disagree with them are not only opinions, but horribly wrong opinions which are begrudgingly tolerated.

Finally, the point you're ignoring (I would say missing, but as you said, you're not that dumb), is one of context. To come out of a cinema and say 'Wow, that movie was great!' has an entirely different meaning to

it WAS a GREAT Film

All I'm saying is that SR may have been a fun and enjoyable movie (I didn't like it, but that's an opinion), but that doesn't make it a great film. What would make it a great film, as in, likely to have won Academy awards, or be featured in a 'Top 10 Movies of All Time' list in years to come, or be studied and appreciated by film critics and students, would be deep characterisation and character development, a well thought out plot and storylines, beautiful cinematography, and brilliant acting.

Why is it that any number of you can come on here and say that SR was a 'great' movie, without giving any explanation, but if I come on here and say that it was not, and give my reasons, I get all this 'you can't say this, you can say that' crap instead of some kind of logical counter-argument? Why don't you tell me your criteria for what makes a 'great' film and explain to me why SR meets these requirements?

 

[Super Kal]

If people thought SR was a bad movie, they just need to watch more movies.

what exactly are you implying, Payaso?...

 

[Cyrusbales]

First of all, don't call me son. You don't know me, it's disrespectful, and you wouldn't call someone you didn't know 'son' to their face (I hope) so don't do it on here.



Second of all, the way I see it, most of what the majority of people do on here is state their opinions as fact (which is hardly what I was doing) and then belittle and dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as doing exactly that. As much as you all try to pretend to respect each other, the general attitude of people who post on here is that the opinions of themselves and those that agree with them are fact and the opinions of those who disagree with them are not only opinions, but horribly wrong opinions which are begrudgingly tolerated.

Finally, the point you're ignoring (I would say missing, but as you said, you're not that dumb), is one of context. To come out of a cinema and say 'Wow, that movie was great!' has an entirely different meaning to



All I'm saying is that SR may have been a fun and enjoyable movie (I didn't like it, but that's an opinion), but that doesn't make it a great film. What would make it a great film, as in, likely to have won Academy awards, or be featured in a 'Top 10 Movies of All Time' list in years to come, or be studied and appreciated by film critics and students, would be deep characterisation and character development, a well thought out plot and storylines, beautiful cinematography, and brilliant acting.

Why is it that any number of you can come on here and say that SR was a 'great' movie, without giving any explanation, but if I come on here and say that it was not, and give my reasons, I get all this 'you can't say this, you can say that' crap instead of some kind of logical counter-argument? Why don't you tell me your criteria for what makes a 'great' film and explain to me why SR meets these requirements?

Ok, there are more than 10 great movies.

It is critically aclaimed quite highly and people I know have studied it to some level in a film degree. As for the direction, cinematography etc, probably some of the best in any comic book movie, and much superior to most movies out there. Character development was huge, a massive iconic character put through changes and tribulations, having to be moved on for five years etc, his character is vastly changed since the old superman films, and we can see how nicely in this film, the questions posed by Perry once he returns explain this nicely: "Does he still stand for truth and justice?" etc etc.

 

[dr collossus]

Ok, there are more than 10 great movies.

Fair enough. It was just an example. Top 100 then or whatever.

Character development was huge

No it wasn't. Character development is when a character grows and changes as a result of the circumstances they are faced with in the story. This didn't happen at all. All that happened is that the circumstances were very different to how they were in the previous films and how the general audience might have expected them to be. There was actually no character development in the movie whatsoever.

the questions posed by Perry once he returns explain this nicely: "Does he still stand for truth and justice?" etc etc.

True. Shame they weren't really addressed in the film. I would have preferred to see some of what the actual supposed premise of the movie was, ie how do Superman's 'old-fashioned' values fit in to a jaded and 'generation x-ed' world? For me its not enough to say 'Look! Here's an issue!' I want to actually see the issue explored.

 

[dr collossus]

As for the direction, cinematography etc, probably some of the best in any comic book movie, and much superior to most movies out there.

Oh and by the way, that's just plain silly.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Oh and by the way, that's just plain silly.

Very solid argument, no addressing of the use of framing, juxtaposition and angles used within SR that gave distinct impressions and audience positioning.

Erm, superman coming back to earth, thinking that he can get back with lois, having to deal with this personal crisis in the midst of a social one. he changes from wanting lois, to wanting her to be happy.

And superman is not portrayed as one of us, he is not a character we are designed to sympathise with, he is supposed to be an icon we look upto, which is why we feel some detachment from him, it's someone far from normal, trying to have normal aspects, and failing. The direction seperates us from him, unlike other incarnations like Donner's and SV.

 

[dr collossus]

The direction seperates us from him, unlike other incarnations like Donner's and SV.

You're right it does, but not in a good way in my opinion. I don't think the direction should seperate us from him, I think it should seperate him from us, like in Donner's take on it.

In SR he is placed apart from the 'human' characters, and from the audience, by basically not having much to do or say, not interacting with anyone to any normal degree, and almost being a background character or support role. I didn't like that. The difference between this take on it and Donner's take on it is that in Donner's take, the character is placed apart from everyone else, but we see things from his point of view. In SR, he is placed apart, but we are made to be part of the crowd. That doesn't sit well with superhero mythology.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Donner makes us sympathise with Supes, we see how he is like in many ways, get to know what he feels etc etc.

With Singer, he is an enigma, full of questions, we aren't privvy to the answers necessarily as he is this larger than life icon, that we look up to and admire, and now begin to question etc.

 

[SuperDaniel]

As far as i know, Batman and Talia have a son.

Well, El payaso, if u cant see the terrible mistakes in SR, then its not my problem. You like the movie, i do too. I just dont think its great. Its just decent. I just expected more of a Superman/heroism story instead of paternity and romance.

Even in the comics when writers focus on the human side of Superman, he`s always better then people. He has emotions but the drive behind these emotions make him better than us. For example, in Superman for all seasons, he feels sadness for not being able to save everybody. He is human for feeling the "emotion" saddness but he is just a better human being.

 

[mego joe]

As far as i know, Batman and Talia have a son.

Just remember that in current continuity Talia date-rape drugged Batman to get pregnant. It's a bit different than the situation with Superman in SR.

Well, El payaso, if u cant see the terrible mistakes in SR, then its not my problem. You like the movie, i do too. I just dont think its great. Its just decent. I just expected more of a Superman/heroism story instead of paternity and romance.

Even in the comics when writers focus on the human side of Superman, he`s always better then people. He has emotions but the drive behind these emotions make him better than us. For example, in Superman for all seasons, he feels sadness for not being able to save everybody. He is human for feeling the "emotion" saddness but he is just a better human being.

Bing, bing, bing we have a winner.

It also occurred to that in SR, SUperman is the villain in the romance story in the film.

 

[SuperDaniel]

^ Well, i dont read comics anymore so i dont know about the current contuinity or even care. I just read what i consider some great stories like All Star Superman, etc. I dont buy comics every week like i used to do.

 

[El Payaso]

First of all, don't call me son. You don't know me, it's disrespectful, and you wouldn't call someone you didn't know 'son' to their face (I hope) so don't do it on here.

I had 'son' for a loving word and in no case a disrespectful thing to say.

Second of all, the way I see it, most of what the majority of people do on here is state their opinions as fact (which is hardly what I was doing) and then belittle and dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as doing exactly that. As much as you all try to pretend to respect each other, the general attitude of people who post on here is that the opinions of themselves and those that agree with them are fact and the opinions of those who disagree with them are not only opinions, but horribly wrong opinions which are begrudgingly tolerated.

And what are you saying, because you see people behaving in such a way you take the liberty to allow yourself to do the same, as wrong as it is?

Is that your excuse?

Finally, the point you're ignoring (I would say missing, but as you said, you're not that dumb), is one of context. To come out of a cinema and say 'Wow, that movie was great!' has an entirely different meaning to

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON
it WAS a GREAT Film

All I'm saying is that SR may have been a fun and enjoyable movie (I didn't like it, but that's an opinion), but that doesn't make it a great film.

By the same logics, to state it's a terrible film is also opinion and it doesn't make it a horrible movie.

But it's nice now you admit yours is another opinion, not a fact.

What would make it a great film, as in, likely to have won Academy awards, or be featured in a 'Top 10 Movies of All Time' list in years to come, or be studied and appreciated by film critics and students, would be deep characterisation and character development, a well thought out plot and storylines, beautiful cinematography, and brilliant acting.

Academy Awards = great film? I don't think so. Too many great films and even greater directors totally oignored by those guys to say it's a proof of quality.

And I guess we have to wait years to come to see lists and critics studies. IF we accept that is a proof of anything.

Why is it that any number of you can come on here and say that SR was a 'great' movie, without giving any explanation, but if I come on here and say that it was not, and give my reasons, I get all this 'you can't say this, you can say that' crap instead of some kind of logical counter-argument? Why don't you tell me your criteria for what makes a 'great' film and explain to me why SR meets these requirements?

Because:

1) People have given explanations and reasons. It's not as you say.

2) You openly stated your opinion as fact. And that was every reply to your original post has been about.

 

[El Payaso]

what exactly are you implying, Payaso?...

I'm implying that the argument is so weak it wçcan be used validly the other way around.

Well, El payaso, if u cant see the terrible mistakes in SR, then its not my problem. You like the movie, i do too. I just dont think its great. Its just decent. I just expected more of a Superman/heroism story instead of paternity and romance.

If it's my problem, I suggest stop suffering about it. I think by replying it so vastly you're making it too much of your poblem.

Even in the comics when writers focus on the human side of Superman, he`s always better then people. He has emotions but the drive behind these emotions make him better than us. For example, in Superman for all seasons, he feels sadness for not being able to save everybody. He is human for feeling the "emotion" saddness but he is just a better human being.

When the Donner's Superman fails to save Lois he reverses times even knowing he's forbidden to. When Lois suffers mental pain, he deletes her memory even knowing that's mind manipulation and she has the right of her memories.

It seems the Donner's Superman could be better than people in some aspects but equally fallible in others. Just like in SR.

Bing, bing, bing we have a winner.

It also occurred to that in SR, SUperman is the villain in the romance story in the film.

Bing bing bing.

It also occurred that in SII, Superman is the one killing the other Kryptonian and manipulating minds, not the villian. Also he bullied a human back abusing of his super-powers, just tlike the villiains did.

Bing bing bing.

 

[SuperDaniel]

So u just proved all the movies are not great interpretations of Superman. But isnt what we are trying to say?

 

[El Payaso]

So u just proved all the movies are not great interpretations of Superman. But isnt what we are trying to say?

Mmmmh. Sounds more like SR is specially wrong about Superman's morals, when in fact it's not.

 

[SuperDaniel]

It is to me. Do u think SR is the best Superman movie ever, the best Superman story you ever read or watched? I dont.

 

[sithgoblin]

Yes it has. Comics, cartoons and movies:

Robin.

And Batman character has nothing to do with paternity as Donner's Superman has.

Unless Robin has ever been a toddler then you're wrong. And what the hell do you mean Batman's character has nothing to do with paternity? The whole reason he exists is because of his parents.

 

[dr collossus]

Very solid argument, no addressing of the use of framing, juxtaposition and angles used within SR that gave distinct impressions and audience positioning.

Please, you make this too easy!

The use of framing, juxtaposition and angles used within SR were weak and lacked expression, relied too heavily on classical techniques and the diversions from classical techniques seemed shoddy rather than experimental. The mise en scene seemed contrived and unnatural resulting in an artificial feeling environment rather than a believable background setting.

But still, in truth I concede that the cinematography was actually not that bad, but that's not the point.

Even in the comics when writers focus on the human side of Superman, he`s always better then people. He has emotions but the drive behind these emotions make him better than us. For example, in Superman for all seasons, he feels sadness for not being able to save everybody. He is human for feeling the "emotion" saddness but he is just a better human being.

Agreed. To quote my dissertation:

"What makes Superman so different from the rest of us is his unerring sense of right and wrong, and his determination to uphold his moral duty no matter what. Superman is not human. Ok, he is from another planet called Krypton, which makes him an alien and also gives him his tremendous abilities, but within the fictional world of superheroes any average Joe can acquire superpowers, through genetic manipulation, exposure to radiation, or by any other science fantasy (or in some cases science fiction) means you can think of. But what makes Superman so utterly inhuman is the fact that he has all these powers yet uses them for good."

Also he bullied a human back abusing of his super-powers

I agree that this was a little out of character and not in keeping with Superman's supposed morality, but a) it was fun! And b) it's an expression of some of the deeper psychology pertaining to Superman (and superheroes in general) and more specifically the concept of the dual identity.

Academy Awards = great film? I don't think so. Too many great films and even greater directors totally oignored by those guys to say it's a proof of quality.

And I guess we have to wait years to come to see lists and critics studies. IF we accept that is a proof of anything.

So what are you saying? That there ARE no good or bad films, only films that you like or dislike? Also, I would like to point out that opinion polls and critical reviews have been used in this thread as 'proof' of what a 'great' film SR is. I can't help noticing you didn't seem to have a problem with them when they were being used to support an opinion you share.

Anyway, the point that I'm trying (repeatedly) to make here, is that I don't think Superman Returns was really that bad a movie. It was OK, it really was! But Superman is my hero of choice (for want of a better expression) and I've enjoyed most of the other superhero movies that have been released. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that some of them were great films! But as I said, Superman is the one I like the most, the one I wrote my dissertation on, the one I read and collect in comics and other bits of crap that I can't help buying when I see the emblem on them, and I really, REALLY wanted SR to be a mind-blowingly good movie! As in an indisputible classic, TRULY great movie that WOULD go down in history. Maybe I'm asking too much. In fact I definitely am.

But come on, honestly, was no one else even a little dissapointed?

 

[sithgoblin]

But come on, honestly, was no one else even a little dissapointed?

I was. People keep saying in its defense that it gave us something we'd never seen before. To quote Ian Malcolm...

You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you knew what you had, you patented it, packaged it, slapped in on a plastic lunch box, and now you want to sell it ... (They) were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I really dont understand how a Superman fan can read classic stories like Superman for all seasons, Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow, Kingdom Come, Action Comics #775. Superman Peace on Earth, etc and think that SR is on the same league of those stories. IT IS NOT. But this is what i expected when i went to the theater. The movie is good but FAR from Superman`s potential and this is WHAT disappointed me most. If i`m watching a movie and i keep thinking, oh, i could`ve done this better, then the movie is no good to me. Generally, the good outweights the bad so i just let it be like most movies i watch. However, with Superman, wich is a character that i truly adore, being a fanatic fan since i was 3 years old, i just dont think the movie as a whole made me feel like a kid again. Its not better than X-men 2, Its not better than Batman Begins and its not better than Spider-man 1 and 2. And this really pisses me off.

 

[sithgoblin]

I really dont understand how a Superman fan can read classic stories like Superman for all seasons, Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow, Kingdom Come, Action Comics #775. Superman Peace on Earth, etc and think that SR is on the same league of those stories. IT IS NOT. But this is what i expected when i went to the theater. The movie is good but FAR from Superman`s potential and this is WHAT disappointed me most. If i`m watching a movie and i keep thinking, oh, i could`ve done this better, then the movie is no good to me. Generally, the good outweights the bad so i just let it be like most movies i watch. However, with Superman, wich is a character that i truly adore, being a fanatic fan since i was 3 years old, i just dont think the movie as a whole made me feel like a kid again. Its not better than X-men 2, Its not better than Batman Begins and its not better than Spider-man 1 and 2. And this really pisses me off.

But it wasn't a good film. The film was supposed to be about Superman, but was ultimately about Lois and Luthor, and as such, it failed to deliver on its promised premise.

The film chronicled Lois's dilemma when her old boyfriend came back into her life. Singer himself has said that much. It's other main plot was Luthor's real estate scheme. Clark as a character was barely touched upon, and we only saw Superman as he related to Lois and Luthor's plots.

The film was supposed to show us Clark and Superman's journey into being reaccepted by society. Where was that? There was a throwaway reference to Lois winning a prize for her anti-Superman story. But that was telling us, not showing us.

What they showed us was the world cheering and accepting Superman as soon as he reappeared. They showed us the mass media accepting him back straight away, with everyone all over the world excited about his return... except Lois and Luthor.

They told us the world was skeptical about Superman, and that they no longer needed him. But they didn't show us. They focused on showing Lois's personal conflict and Luthor's evil sceme.

Telling instead of showing is sloppy filmmaking.