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

[superbaby]

"Superman can be a great movie franchise.....it wishes to be.......it only lacks the vision to show it the way......."

how true...

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

well, I don't want to be "spoon-fed" either. I don't want mindless action, stuff blowing up the entire movie. Yes, I want action, fun, entertainment.....at the same time drama, character development. There has to be a balance.

That's why, at first, I was really excited when Singer was announced to direct. I enjoyed his work on X1 and X2, and thought "Yay! we're getting an 'intelligent' director who can offer an 'intelligent' take on a comic book material."

And, yes, Singer did treat the movie seriously. I truly believe Singer poured his heart and soul into SR and his vision for the movie.

I just DISAGREE STRONGLY with the ultimate outcome of the movie. For me, SR just didn't satisfy me as a story/movie about Superman.

However, as I've said before, there were some interesting ideas/themes/concepts presented in SR. I still feel that if the context had been tweaked a bit, the themes explored a bit more deeply.....just a bit more editing.........changes here and there........the core elements of SR could have been retold in a slightly different story.........but with a much more powerful and effective impact........

Well thats the thing, the movie did have a powerful and effective impact on me personally. Heck, it made me read Superman comics which is something i have NEVER contemplated before in my life EVER, and it made me a fan of the Superman character, something i wasnt previously.

Maybe a DC would add a bit more to the story, but it seems we're not getting one at this point.

 

[Super Kal]

well, I don't want to be "spoon-fed" either. I don't want mindless action, stuff blowing up the entire movie. Yes, I want action, fun, entertainment.....at the same time drama, character development. There has to be a balance.

That's why, at first, I was really excited when Singer was announced to direct. I enjoyed his work on X1 and X2, and thought "Yay! we're getting an 'intelligent' director who can offer an 'intelligent' take on a comic book material."

And, yes, Singer did treat the movie seriously. I truly believe Singer poured his heart and soul into SR and his vision for the movie.

I just DISAGREE STRONGLY with the ultimate outcome of the movie. For me, SR just didn't satisfy me as a story/movie about Superman.

However, as I've said before, there were some interesting ideas/themes/concepts presented in SR. I still feel that if the context had been tweaked a bit, the themes explored a bit more deeply.....just a bit more editing.........changes here and there........the core elements of SR could have been retold in a slightly different story.........but with a much more powerful and effective impact........

QFT

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

LOVE the avatar Kakarot!

 

[Super Kal]

 

[X Knight]

btw.....what does QFT mean?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think people hated the fact that superman had developed, five years has changed him, and we see he is a different man in some respects, which provides the conflict that a lot of people have with this film.

Well thats what i like about the movie, Superman goes on an emotional journey as well as a physical one.

The Superman at the end of SR is not the same one as at the start.

 

[buggs0268]

Ebert says exactly a lot of what is wrong with the movie, and Roper gives it a mild thumbs up, but only for the action scenes. But once Ebert reasons with him, Roper seems to agree more. Watch their review here to see a fe of the problems and why a lot of superman fans don't like SR. In fact, they even say in the review something like "If you are a real Superman fan you probbly wont like it"

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=6&subsec=superman

And before you likers bring up it made more than Batman Begins, listen to what they have to say about it

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=6&subsec=superman

 

[El Payaso]

Ebert says exactly a lot of what is wrong with the movie, and Roper gives it a mild thumbs up, but only for the action scenes. But once Ebert reasons with him, Roper seems to agree more. Watch their review here to see a fe of the problems and why a lot of superman fans don't like SR. In fact, they even say in the review something like "If you are a real Superman fan you probbly wont like it"

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=6&subsec=superman

And before you likers bring up it made more than Batman Begins, listen to what they have to say about it

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=6&subsec=superman

A couple of reviewers said that.

The big question seems unavoidable...




So?

 

[Super Kal]

btw.....what does QFT mean?

quoted for truth

 

[hippie_hunter]

Ebert says exactly a lot of what is wrong with the movie, and Roper gives it a mild thumbs up, but only for the action scenes. But once Ebert reasons with him, Roper seems to agree more. Watch their review here to see a fe of the problems and why a lot of superman fans don't like SR. In fact, they even say in the review something like "If you are a real Superman fan you probbly wont like it"

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=6&subsec=superman

Both Ebert and Roper fail to bring up what was wrong.

I completely disagree with Ebert on Superman having too few words. To me, while Superman is a wholesome and bright character, I see him as a man of few words just like Batman. He's not like Robin, the Flash, Green Lantern, and other heroes who throw around the banter during battle.

Superman Returns had two ideas that made it have the mixed reception that it has among Superman fans:

1. Superman fans did not have a near unanimous direction they desired. Unlike Batman's fans who wanted the origin story we got in Batman Begins. Lots of people wanted different things: "Superman Begins," a reboot with an established Superman which is what Kevin Smith would have liked judging from how he saw Superman Lives, Smallville the Movie which is what many Smallville fans would have liked, Jon Peters wanted a Superman who fought gigantic spiders and have polar bear soldiers, and Bryan Singer wanted a continuation of the Donner movies.

2. It's not a traditional superhero movie like Batman Begins, Spider-Man, and all the other superhero movies out there. It's more of a drama that stars a superhero and his supporting cast.

Personally my only problems with the movie were:

1. Kate Bosworth was horribly miscast. They should have went with someone older for Lois Lane.

2. Kevin Spacey did a great job as Lex Luthor. He did an excellent job making Lex a darker character than the previous movies. The problem is that he played Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor who is extremely campy and despite making Lex darker, Hackman's Lex is a camp character and no amount of "darkness" from Spacey can change that fact.

3. It's set in the same continuity as the Donner movies, they should have kept the costume the same.

4. They cut out a lot of stuff apparently like Superman exploring Krypton's remains.

 

[Mr. Socko]

A couple of reviewers said that.

The big question seems unavoidable...


So?

So????

Roger Ebert..................................................................





















































IS THE JUGGANAUT B*TCH!

 

[slave2catwoman]

Ebert was right. Very flawed movie.

 

[El Payaso]

So????

Roger Ebert..................................................................


IS THE JUGGANAUT B*TCH!

He wishes.

 

[Qwerty©]

2. Kevin Spacey did a great job as Lex Luthor. He did an excellent job making Lex a darker character than the previous movies. The problem is that he played Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor who is extremely campy and despite making Lex darker, Hackman's Lex is a camp character and no amount of "darkness" from Spacey can change that fact.

Hackman's Lex was not campy. He was perfectly serious, it was the fact he was surrounded by morons that created the humour. Otis was campy, but not Lex Luthor.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Hackman's Lex was not campy. He was perfectly serious, it was the fact he was surrounded by morons that created the humour. Otis was campy, but not Lex Luthor.

Surrounding himself with people like Otis, Ms. Teschmacher, and Lenny Luthor made Lex a very campy villain. Also his plans for real estate, coming up with the Nuclear Man, etc. also made him camp.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Ebert says exactly a lot of what is wrong with the movie, and Roper gives it a mild thumbs up, but only for the action scenes. But once Ebert reasons with him, Roper seems to agree more. Watch their review here to see a fe of the problems and why a lot of superman fans don't like SR. In fact, they even say in the review something like "If you are a real Superman fan you probbly wont like it"

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=6&subsec=superman

And before you likers bring up it made more than Batman Begins, listen to what they have to say about it

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=6&subsec=superman

I just have to say SO ****ING WHAT. I could give you plenty of examples of critics who loved the movie, here is one:

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/review.asp?DVDID=117462

Read that one!

Both Ebert and Roper fail to bring up what was wrong.

I completely disagree with Ebert on Superman having too few words. To me, while Superman is a wholesome and bright character, I see him as a man of few words just like Batman. He's not like Robin, the Flash, Green Lantern, and other heroes who throw around the banter during battle.

Superman Returns had two ideas that made it have the mixed reception that it has among Superman fans:

1. Superman fans did not have a near unanimous direction they desired. Unlike Batman's fans who wanted the origin story we got in Batman Begins. Lots of people wanted different things: "Superman Begins," a reboot with an established Superman which is what Kevin Smith would have liked judging from how he saw Superman Lives, Smallville the Movie which is what many Smallville fans would have liked, Jon Peters wanted a Superman who fought gigantic spiders and have polar bear soldiers, and Bryan Singer wanted a continuation of the Donner movies.

2. It's not a traditional superhero movie like Batman Begins, Spider-Man, and all the other superhero movies out there. It's more of a drama that stars a superhero and his supporting cast.

Personally my only problems with the movie were:

1. Kate Bosworth was horribly miscast. They should have went with someone older for Lois Lane.

2. Kevin Spacey did a great job as Lex Luthor. He did an excellent job making Lex a darker character than the previous movies. The problem is that he played Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor who is extremely campy and despite making Lex darker, Hackman's Lex is a camp character and no amount of "darkness" from Spacey can change that fact.

3. It's set in the same continuity as the Donner movies, they should have kept the costume the same.

4. They cut out a lot of stuff apparently like Superman exploring Krypton's remains.

I agree with all except the criticisms (except number 4). It wasnt a traditional CB movie, which i found very refreshing.

Hackman's Lex was not campy. He was perfectly serious, it was the fact he was surrounded by morons that created the humour. Otis was campy, but not Lex Luthor.

I agree, i thought Lex in the 3rd act was extremely vicious and evil. I hope we get more of that in MOS.

 

[Qwerty©]

Surrounding himself with people like Otis, Ms. Teschmacher, and Lenny Luthor made Lex a very campy villain. Also his plans for real estate, coming up with the Nuclear Man, etc. also made him camp.

Real estate is campy?

 

[Super Kal]

no, but it can be boring when rehashed...

 

[Qwerty©]

no, but it can be boring when rehashed...

In that case, Lex Luthor should never try to kill Superman in the comics ever again.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

In that case, Lex Luthor should never try to kill Superman in the comics ever again.

Ha ha, good one.

 

[C. Lee]

Real estate is campy?

In the first Reeve Superman film.....Lex buys up land that he plans on becoming "oceanfront" property that he will own.....after he sets off a nuclear weapon (that he stole from the U.S. Military) in the San Andreas fault line (killing millions of people)......and he thinks there will be no investigation or no way to link him to it.......yeah, that's campy.

In Superman Returns......Lex uses alien technology (that he only tests once in a totally non equal environment than he plans to use it in to it's full extent later) to create a new continent (which if allowed to go to fruition, displaces and destroys parts of four other continents and kills billions of people).....but seems to have no idea how long it will take for this conversition to take place, so doesn't have anything more than several lightly armed (if armed at all) henchmen to fight off any assault that can me mustered by the armed forces of half the world......yeah, that's campy.

 

[Qwerty©]

In the first Reeve Superman film.....Lex buys up land that he plans on becoming "oceanfront" property that he will own.....after he sets off a nuclear weapon (that he stole from the U.S. Military) in the San Andreas fault line (killing millions of people)......and he thinks there will be no investigation or no way to link him to it.......yeah, that's campy.

In Superman Returns......Lex uses alien technology (that he only tests once in a totally non equal environment than he plans to use it in to it's full extent later) to create a new continent (which if allowed to go to fruition, displaces and destroys parts of four other continents and kills billions of people).....but seems to have no idea how long it will take for this conversition to take place, so doesn't have anything more than several lightly armed (if armed at all) henchmen to fight off any assault that can me mustered by the armed forces of half the world......yeah, that's campy.

Not according to the english language:

CAMPY
n.

1. An affectation or appreciation of manners and tastes commonly thought to be artificial, vulgar, or banal.
2. Banality, vulgarity, or artificiality when deliberately affected or when appreciated for its humor: "Camp is popularity plus vulgarity plus innocence" (Indra Jahalani).

adj. Having deliberately artificial, vulgar, banal, or affectedly humorous qualities or style: played up the silliness of their roles for camp effect.

That has nothing to do with the nature of Lex Luthors plan.

 

[afan]

I'm in Qwerty©'s "camp" on this one, Luthor and his plan in STM was not camp.

 

[slave2catwoman]

I still want to know how and why Jor-El was speaking 20th century English in holograms that were created thousands of years ago on a distant planet. And why Superman left his front door wide open when he knew Lex knew where the fortress was.