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

[Steve Rogers]

and I'll just say yes, because it eats the awesomeness of STM and regurgitates it back into a steaming pile of depressing crap.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[mego joe]

At the moment every movie is being questioned because of the strike, SR is the 6th or 7th highest grossing CB movie since Blade re-started the craze, thats not a bad place to be. And dont forget the length of the movie and the fact that itr was a first in the franchise.

Being first doesn't bode well though does it? Sequel make less than the original, it's very rare for a sequel to gross more than the first even though sequels almost ALWAYS cost more.

It makes me laugh when people say SR was a failure, when there are so many movies out there tha would KILL to make $390 million world-wide.

But it's not just any movie, it's a Superman movie at the height of comic book movie mania.

Plus, neither WB nor ourselves have ANY CLUE as to how SR resonated with everyone who saw it, unless they survey everyone and i can say with confidence they havent.

Perhaps WB have indicators that we are not privy to.

At this moment in time they obviously think a JL movie can make more money for them, but this is the studio that greenlight Catwoman.

ANd you haven't seen Catwoman II have you? Perhaps that's the best evidence to show that there's a good chance there won't be SR2.

Your kidding me right? See above for more.

Obviously not, if the fan base is divided, and haters only know other haters and lovers only know other lovers, it might indicate that the division applies to the GA as well as the core fans. Plus, filmmakers actually care what the core 'fanboys' think. THey know without them the film will not go anywhere.

NO, no-one is wrong, they just disagree with you, i have a lot of respect for CR, but IMO Brandon was better than him.

Not my argument, but I think that statement is laughable.

 

[mego joe]

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

He's trying to say that Singer tried to re-capture the magic of S:TM by using it as 'vague history' and lifting plot and dialogue and b/c SInger doesn't understand the character well enough, Singer made a crappy film instead.

 

[mego joe]

What you're seeing is a continuation of themes, not a rehash.

I wouldn't say a continuation of the themes but rather a re-telling of the themes with different details. It doesn't really progress beyond, the Donner films, it just uses different details to try and say the same things. Unfortunately, the details end up changing many aspects of the characters and tone of the film.

However, he did lift the outline of STM as template for SR and rehashed the lame Land scheme Lex.

 

[Angeloz]

Being first doesn't bode well though does it? Sequel make less than the original, it's very rare for a sequel to gross more than the first even though sequels almost ALWAYS cost more.

Always? Tell that to "Star Trek II" it had a cut budget and was the better film (I did notice the "almost" and I can't comment on other film series 'cos I don't care about film budgets). Then there's the "X-Men" films which made more for each film I believe. Also Bryan Singer did a couple of them. I'm not saying that these things will happen but it is possible.

Angeloz

 

[Steve Rogers]

He's trying to say that Singer tried to re-capture the magic of S:TM by using it as 'vague history' and lifting plot and dialogue and b/c SInger doesn't understand the character well enough, Singer made a crappy film instead.

Well it references the vague history because it was a sequel. And I agree, the characterization was so far off that the film was horrid. Hence, it is not a rehashing. Perhaps that was Singer's intent, but that was not what he ended up doing.

 

[buggs0268]

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

He means it took some things from STM, a movie still considered a classic, and redid things to the point of having nothing to do with STM while still trying to pretend to be a sequel to it and failing. It also was a requel, which is a retelling of STM, and a sequel at the same time, so it stole story plots, characters, ideas, and whole pages of dialog, including a dead actor, and stunk up the joint.

 

[Steve Rogers]

He means it took some things from STM, a movie still considered a classic, and redid things to the point of having nothing to do with STM while still trying to pretend to be a sequel to it and failing. It also was a requel, which is a retelling of STM, and a sequel at the same time, so it stole story plots, characters, ideas, and whole pages of dialog, including a dead actor, and stunk up the joint.

But my point is is that it failed to accomplish any of that. Maybe Singer wanted to rehash Donner's Superman, but in the end, Superman Returns is nothing like the original. Hence, to me, it's not rehashing.

 

[Lightning54SC]

But my point is is that it failed to accomplish any of that. Maybe Singer wanted to rehash Donner's Superman, but in the end, Superman Returns is nothing like the original. Hence, to me, it's not rehashing.

hmmmmmm sorry but its a rehash, go watch it both movies and make a check list....

as for me not liking, bad colors, actors that werent needed (BR), bad story, too many important scenes cut with crappy non needed scenes added in, helll i cut my own version of SR that made more sense then Singers version

 

[mego joe]

Always? Tell that to "Star Trek II" it had a cut budget and was the better film (I did notice the "almost" and I can't comment on other film series 'cos I don't care about film budgets). Then there's the "X-Men" films which made more for each film I believe. Also Bryan Singer did a couple of them. I'm not saying that these things will happen but it is possible.

Angeloz

That's my point though, it's not the rule for sequels to gross more and cost less, STar Trek II and X-Men 2 and 3 are the exceptions.

Thus, SR being the first in the series is in no way guaranteeing a better higher grossing or more profitable.

And SInger was not a part of X-men 3 and it still was the highest grossing of the 3.

 

[Angeloz]

But mainly because of the first two films. I've heard it didn't have a very long run in cinemas.

Angeloz

 

[Steve Rogers]

Rather than everyone going, "You're wrong, it's a rehash," why not convince me? Back up your opinons someone. I'm sorry, I just don't see it as a rehash. I mean, I get where you are coming from: The hero comes to Earth, goes to Metropolis, meanwhile Lex is doing a real estate scheme...but if that's all yo have to go on, I still say it is no rehash. I'm talking theme and characteization here. As I said, maybe it was Singer's intent to rehash the original, but that doesn't mean he did it.

 

[Angeloz]

There was a man in a cape that flew?

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

Rather than everyone going, "You're wrong, it's a rehash," why not convince me? Back up your opinons someone. I'm sorry, I just don't see it as a rehash. I mean, I get where you are coming from: The hero comes to Earth, goes to Metropolis, meanwhile Lex is doing a real estate scheme...but if that's all yo have to go on, I still say it is no rehash. I'm talking theme and characteization here. As I said, maybe it was Singer's intent to rehash the original, but that doesn't mean he did it.

Themes- Superman's place in the world, SUperman and Lois can't be together, Superman screws up Lois's love life.

CHaracterization- LEx as lame real estate guy, Lois- mean towards Clark, a smoker.

Combine that with the template from S:TM that he used and you pretty much have a rehash of S:TM including some themes from SII.

 

[Angeloz]

You need to see it again 'cos there's more. Although there are differences too.

Angeloz

 

[dr collossus]

Themes- Superman's place in the world, SUperman and Lois can't be together, Superman screws up Lois's love life.

CHaracterization- LEx as lame real estate guy, Lois- mean towards Clark, a smoker.

Combine that with the template from S:TM that he used and you pretty much have a rehash of S:TM including some themes from SII.

I think really this is just an indication of Singer's limited depth of understanding of Superman as a character. I think it re-hashed these elements, which featured strongly in S:TM and SII, but I don't think the film itself was a rehash.

 

[mego joe]

I think really this is just an indication of Singer's limited depth of understanding of Superman as a character. I think it re-hashed these elements, which featured strongly in S:TM and SII, but I don't think the film itself was a rehash.

SO how can it not be a re-hash if it uses the main themes, characterization AND the scene by scene template and not be a re-hash of sorts? Plus dialoge! It is certainly more than homage.

 

[dr collossus]

I agree with what you're saying, however

It is certainly more than homage.

I strongly disagree here. I think it falls far short of a homage. I think there were parts where Singer referenced scenes from the Reeve films, but he didn't really understand them so they were completely out of context. That's just lip-service.

 

[mego joe]

I agree with what you're saying, however



I strongly disagree here. I think it falls far short of a homage. I think there were parts where Singer referenced scenes from the Reeve films, but he didn't really understand them so they were completely out of context. That's just lip-service.

I understand what you are getting at, but I think SInger tried very hard to pay homage to Donner/ Reeve but b/c of his limited understanding of the character and the films it comes off as rehashing with different details. And b/c of lack of understanding he used more and more of the Donner/ Reeve films to the point that it becomes superficial rehash, while being substantively off the mark.

 

[Super Kal]

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I'm saying that all SR is a copy of STM, with the exception of 3 original plots in the movie...

I feel I have been cheated on this film because I don't want to see STM again, and I certainly a dark and depressing version of STM either...

 

[Steve Rogers]

Themes- Superman's place in the world, SUperman and Lois can't be together, Superman screws up Lois's love life.

CHaracterization- LEx as lame real estate guy, Lois- mean towards Clark, a smoker.

Combine that with the template from S:TM that he used and you pretty much have a rehash of S:TM including some themes from SII.

How did Superman screw up Lois' love life in the original? She was single. Okay, maybe they both had a theme of Superman's place in the world, but they were vastly different views. Donner's Superman was much more human than Singer's Christ like version. Superman and Lois can't be together? I don't recall Superman trying to get with Lois until the second movie. And even if one could argue that they couldn't be together, the reasons are vastly different. Superman may or may not have chosen to be with Lois, following his father's wishes. In Superman Returns he simpply leaves her and wants her back but can't since she was moved on. That's a theme there. The world moved on without Superman. That theme was not in Donner's movie.

I wouldn't call Lex's scheme a rehash. He was simply keeping with the character already established. This was a sequel and not a remake after all. By that rational one could argue that TMNT II: The Secret of the Ooze is a rehash of the original because in both movies Shredder was an evil ninja. Lois' a smoker and being mean towards Clark is the same thing. Staying true to characterization within a movie series is not rehashing it. It's called continuity. A character on a TV show is the same in each episode, and I wouldn't call each episode a rehash of the pilot.

Let's just agree to disagree. I'm sorry, just don't see it.

BTW you DC fans are much nicer than my Marvel friends. If this had been a Marvel discussion, there would have been name calling and crap by now.

 

[dr collossus]

BTW you DC fans are much nicer than my Marvel friends. If this had been a Marvel discussion, there would have been name calling and crap by now.

It's come close but there's a kind of plastic etiquette that goes on in here and keeps everyone civil for the most part.

 

[mego joe]

How did Superman screw up Lois' love life in the original? She was single.

In SII, before the amnesia kiss her love life is screwed up. Hence all the crying and woe is me about he not being able to find anyone else after having been with Superman.

Okay, maybe they both had a theme of Superman's place in the world, but they were vastly different views.

Different details and views but a rehash of the same theme.

Donner's Superman was much more human than Singer's Christ like version. Superman and Lois can't be together? I don't recall Superman trying to get with Lois until the second movie. And even if one could argue that they couldn't be together, the reasons are vastly different.

Same theme different details. THe Lois Superman/ theme is from SII and not S:TM, that is correct.

Superman may or may not have chosen to be with Lois, following his father's wishes. In Superman Returns he simpply leaves her and wants her back but can't since she was moved on. That's a theme there.

Story details, the theme is :why superman and lois can't be together.
[/quote]

The world moved on without Superman. That theme was not in Donner's movie.
[/quote]

NO again, story / plot, the theme is the above mentioned SUperman's place in the world.

I wouldn't call Lex's scheme a rehash. He was simply keeping with the character already established. This was a sequel and not a remake after all.

It's re-quel (thanks to whomever coined that phrase.) It re hashes themes, dialoge and elements from I and II while using different details to develop the same themes. It is a sequel in that it uses thematic elements already seen in I and II and attempts to add to it (Jason.) But not very well I might add.

By that rational one could argue that TMNT II: The Secret of the Ooze is a rehash of the original because in both movies Shredder was an evil ninja. Lois' a smoker and being mean towards Clark is the same thing. Staying true to characterization within a movie series is not rehashing it. It's called continuity. A character on a TV show is the same in each episode, and I wouldn't call each episode a rehash of the pilot.

Let's just agree to disagree. I'm sorry, just don't see it.

hey, you brought up characterization. ANd the idea is with Superman is that using the EXACT same characterization form a 30year old film IS a rehash, b/c there were so many OTHER possibilities to go with in presenting the characters and themes that SInger ONLY went with his understanding of the old films. Singer himself says it's not a direct sequel, only a thematic and vague sequel.

BTW you DC fans are much nicer than my Marvel friends. If this had been a Marvel discussion, there would have been name calling and crap by now.

 

[Steve Rogers]

hey, you brought up characterization. ANd the idea is with Superman is that using the EXACT same characterization form a 30year old film IS a rehash, b/c there were so many OTHER possibilities to go with in presenting the characters and themes that SInger ONLY went with his understanding of the old films. Singer himself says it's not a direct sequel, only a thematic and vague sequel.

It's NOT a direct sequel? Now it makes even less sense. Swing and a miss, Singer. I guess I have no clue what the film was supposed to be, which means, either I am dense, or Singer made a truly attrocious film. I mean I agree, there is so much more to in the Superman lure other than the old films. But if it's not a direct sequel why base the characterization on the old films? I am confused as hell now

Singer :

 

[Angeloz]

It's NOT a direct sequel? Now it makes even less sense. Swing and a miss, Singer. I guess I have no clue what the film was supposed to be, which means, either I am dense, or Singer made a truly attrocious film. I mean I agree, there is so much more to in the Superman lure other than the old films. But if it's not a direct sequel why base the characterization on the old films? I am confused as hell now

Singer :

You never noticed it was set in 2006? Plus different actors mostly? I don't mean those questions as a form of attack.

Angeloz