Will this movie be a retread of Superman II?

[FilmNerdJamie]

Yes, that's all that Zod's plot is in this movie. I'm sure it won't be anything with original aspects at all. No this is nothing new, your right

You're the one who argued it's a different Zod story and acting like a know-it-all. I pointed out the obvious (I say "obvious" but it's clearly lost on you) about how it's not so different.

Yes, it will be a re tread of the Superman story.

See? That wasn't hard to do.

Just not a re tread of the Donner/Lester films specifically, which is what SR did, and what the OP was questioning.

The original poster asked that and I clarified the bigger question should be how much this retreads the first two films as a whole.

And you need to stop treating every opinion I have with condecension as though I'm an idiot poster.

Seriously, do you have some issue with me? Or am I just an easy target to wind up?

People are allowed to be fans on this fan forum are they not? Shouldn't people be allowed to act like fans without fear of being treated like their opinions are invalid because of it!

IMO People should be allowed to defend a positive outlook on this film based on the evidence we have... Which is ALL I am doing here!

And you need to stop asking like a rabid and defensive Cavill fangirl. You're the one who went on the attack after I said something actually. Not to mention all the eye-rolls on your part. Something again you started. Which is ironic since you whine about being talked down to...when that's clearly what you're doing yourself to others. Irony.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

It's not reinventing the wheel here, but it's definitely not a follow-up to Donner's films and I think that's the key point Hopefulsuicide is making.

Superman Returns was clearly sold as an indirect (or direct, depending on your perception) sequel to Superman II, despite arriving 25 years later. Yet it ignored Superman III and IV. Singer himself said last year - "I want to make a romantic movie that harkens back to the Richard Donner movie that I loved so much".

Lois had Superman's son, which clearly occurred after they slept together in Superman II. You had yet another Lex Luthor real estate plot. The 'statistically speaking, it's still the safest way to travel" line. The John Williams theme. The very similar title graphics. Marlon Brando as Jor-El, again. A lead actor who was said by many to resemble Christopher Reeve. The Superman suit, while altered in terms of colour and crest size, was still fundamentally the same design. The farm looked very similar. And lots of other little nods, like Superman blowing out Lois' cigarette in both films, his signature flight around Earth and smile to the camera at the end, etc. All things which appeared in the Donner film in an identical or very close way.

From what we've seen so far of MOS - they are taking an entirely new approach. No-one from previous films has been recast. The suit is very different. The crest design is totally different. There has been no indication that any score from previous films will be used. Entirely new sets have been built. Clark's backstory looks to involve him travelling the world, which wasn't something we seen much of in any previous films. Henry Cavill does not really resemble Reeve facially at all asides from the dark hair. There looks to be much more action in this film than previous ones. The Kents appear younger than the versions used in Donner films.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make, yes.

That is a limitation of how superhero movie structure works, I mean in case of TDK Joker caused chaos and lawlessness in Gotham City and Batman was the only hero who could save the city (like in Batman'89). Similarly every time an alien (or Zod) invades Earth Superman will confront them.

Since they are re visiting the Superman's origins some elements will look familiar, they will add some more story to make it look better, so even if there are obvious similarities there enough differences there, just like Joker in Batman'89 was different than Joker in TDK.

Great example of how a plot, over simplified, can appear the same, when it fact it's clearly a NEW take.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

And you need to stop asking like a rabid and defensive Cavill fangirl.

Your opinion of me is clear.

I'm only asking that you stop repeating it in every thread, by pedantically argueing with me in an unreasonable fashion.

I'm not an unreasonable poster.

Sometimes I have fun and a good fangirl giggle. Sometimes I express enthusiasm, gush over a picture, or defend something simply because I love it.

However, that is not the case here.

I truly, rationally, do not think MOS is going to suffer with the same stigma SR had for being a 'retread' because all the information points to it being nothing like that.

That's not me rabidly defending Henry Cavill.

It's just me coming to my own logical opinion.

You twisting the point of the OP, boiling the plot down to it's simplist form and trying to somehow make that prove me wrong based on using the word 're tread' outside of the context the rest of us where talking about, does not change that.

 

[KingKane88]

Your opinion of me is clear.

I'm only asking that you stop repeating it in every thread, by pedantically argueing with me in an unreasonable fashion.

I'm not an unreasonable poster.

Sometimes I have fun and a good fangirl giggle. Sometimes I express enthusiasm, gush over a picture, or defend something simply because I love it.

However, that is not the case here.

I truly, rationally, do not think MOS is going to suffer with the same stigma SR had for being a 'retread' because all the information points to it being nothing like that.

That's not me rabidly defending Henry Cavill.

It's just me coming to my own logical opinion.

You twisting the point of the OP, boiling the plot down to it's simplist form and trying to somehow make that prove me wrong based on using the word 're tread' outside of the context the rest of us where talking about, does not change that.

Apparently you get called names and labeled fanboy or fangirl these days for being overly enthusiastic and excited about something, didn't you know that was a crime? welcome to the internet.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

I'm only asking that you stop repeating it in every thread, by pedantically argueing with me in an unreasonable fashion.

"Unreasonable." Translation: an opinion that doesn't match yours. That's why fanboys/fangirls, in fact, do not think logically. Because they can't see views past their own and instead of agreeing (or agreeing to disagreeing) they just eye-roll to everything. Not that you haven't done any of that.

I'm not an unreasonable poster.

Hence all the condescending eye-rolls to others who disagree with you, I'm sure.

However, that is not the case here.

Of course, it isn't.

I truly, rationally, do not think MOS is going to suffer with the same stigma SR had for being a 'retread' because all the information points to it being nothing like that.

And that's fine if you think that way. But you're ignoring how this can be viewed as a retread with all the information I pointed to.

That's not me rabidly defending Henry Cavill.

You're rabidly defending it because you're a Cavill fangirl by your own admittance.

You twisting the point of the OP, boiling the plot down to it's simplist form and trying to somehow make that prove me wrong based on using the word 're tread' outside of the context the rest of us where talking about, does not change that.

I hate reading too. I agreed with the original poster's point and added how it's also a case of how its retread both of the Donner films.

You argue about the simplest form of proving a point and yet all you're doing to saying how Superman Returns was just a retread of Superman the Movie. Because we all know how in the Donner film it addressed the perceived irrelevancy of the character in today's society, the role a Messiah plays in our world (aka What if Jesus was around today...except with a red and blue suit instead of a robe?), a threat that Superman can't easily vanquish with his many powers (aka destroying a family that came about by his absence) and that kid. Yeah...all that was totally in Superman the Movie.

No, you just argue "Oh it's another re-estate scheme and they use lines from the earlier films." Because that's totally not boiling it to the simplest point to fit your argument.

Apparently you get called names and labeled fanboy or fangirl these days for being overly enthusiastic and excited about something, didn't you know that was a crime? welcome to the internet.

One drooling Cavill fangirl defending another. How...surprising? *Shrugs*

 

[Kryptonian Warrior]

 

[DrCosmic]

Cynicism = validity, I guess.

But honestly guys, this is a retread of Superman II. There's an origin story in there that's brand new, yes, but Zod is Zod. Jor-El beef, seriority to humans, wants Kal to join. Y'know, Zod. Faora looks like Ursa instead of Faora. Yes he's got some sort of mecha/power suit now and the military sent to stop him is actually respectable now, but he's still very much classic 70s Zod. There's nothing wrong with that. Avatar was a retread of Ferngully, and TDK a retread of Batman 89.

 

[ElDuderino]

Zod comes to Earth with his cohorts and they want to take over the planet and only Superman can stop him. Yeah, it is a NEW Zod story.

Holy terrible argument, Batman. In that sense BB and TDKR are just retreading Batman 1989, because, you know, that was in part a Batman origin story where his rich parents died, he lived in a mansion with a butler named Alfred, and the biggest villain was a crime boss/murderer dressed as a clown terrorizing the city of Gotham. Yeah, it's a NEW Batman origin/Joker storyline.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Is this movie going to have Non in it? If not that makes it entirely different.

 

[El Payaso]

Superman wore red trunks in SII. So no.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Is this movie going to have Non in it? If not that makes it entirely different.

Only if they change his name to Un. Totally different.

 

[Lily Adler]

I wouldn't say retread, but there are definite similarities.

 

[Micromind]

re·tread (r-trd)
tr.v. re·tread·ed, re·tread·ing, re·treads
1. To fit (a worn automotive tire) with a new tread.
2. To make or do over again, especially with minimal revision; rehash: retreading a familiar story line.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/retread

So, in a way it is a re tread, though I prefer to use the term - re imagining.

 

[Kryptonian Warrior]

Oh good grief, who the hell cares?! From everything that we have seen so far, this looks to be a badass movie that us Superman fans deserve! The only similarities this will have to Superman II are the names. Plus, I'm sure that Zod and co. will want to take over the world, but what villain doesn't ultimately want to rule in some shape or form? What is the point in arguing over such minute crap? It's just not worth the time and effort.

 

[Showtime]

This is clearly a case of WB/DC needing to get a Superman flick out asap and going for a reinvention of Superman 1 & 2. Ursa being called Faora and Zod wearing a different suit doesn't make it different. Sure the colors will be prettier, the effects will be much better, but the backbone of this movie will be the same.

Is there anything wrong with that? No. Is it there? It sure is.

It sounds like the powers that be are going for Superman 1 & 2 in a post 9/11 world. Is Superman a threat? Is Zod a threat? Who is good? Who is bad? Just like WE don't know anymore in reality, either will the government in this version on film.

You'll most likely hear words like "Threat", "Terrorist", "Terrorism", "National Security". You'll still have Zod and company taking over a small town and reeking havoc with the military unable to stop them. Except this time it won't be "Planet Houston" it will be Smallville.

I'm sure the film will be good and different in it's own way, but to say their aren't going to be very evident similarities to Superman 1 & 2 is a tad shortsighted. Lois having red hair and Perry White being African-American is not a plot point.

 

[batman44]

I think at this moment it's too early to tell, however, I think somethings will probably be similar with Superman 1 & 2. Being that MOS is an origin story there will be certain story beats that will be familiar to us all, but i don't think that necessarily means retread as I think S:TM and STAS first 3 episodes were hardly anything alike.

Once we know more about the plot and it's structure then I think we can better discern if this will feel like a retread or not.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Man Of Steel will redo things that were covered in Superman and Superman II. However redoing things isn't necessarily a bad thing. Look at all the similarities between Batman & Batman Returns to Batman Begins & The Dark Knight. And you'll see you can use the same villains, similar plotlines, but they can feel new and fresh despite being done before.

 

[Project862006]

hope, thought you learned your lesson to argue with jamie he is unreasonable and only condescending at the same time move on

 

[Pickle-El]

Yes, that's all that Zod's plot is in this movie. I'm sure it won't be anything with original aspects at all. No this is nothing new, your right



Superman Returns was trying to emulate the visual style of Metropolis with it's retro clothes etc. And trying to make BR look as much like CR's CK as possible.

Yes, it had differences. But the point is, they INTENDED it to look similar, to remind you of the past.

The intention with MOS seems to be to look completely different.



I'm not saying all Superman stories are Zod stories.

I'm saying the only context in which this is a retread, is if your referring to said story beats, which exist across the entire mythos.

Yes, it will be a re tread of the Superman story.

Just not a re tread of the Donner/Lester films specifically, which is what SR did, and what the OP was questioning.



And you need to stop treating every opinion I have with condecension as though I'm an idiot poster.

Seriously, do you have some issue with me? Or am I just an easy target to wind up?

People are allowed to be fans on this fan forum are they not? Shouldn't people be allowed to act like fans without fear of being treated like their opinions are invalid because of it!

IMO People should be allowed to defend a positive outlook on this film based on the evidence we have... Which is ALL I am doing here!

No. It isn't some issue just with you. I've noticed Jamie really enjoys belittling posters around here. Which is odd, because other than knowing Showtime, I don't know how someone with that attitude got the chance of being in that position...oh wait! I think WE ALL know why he gets away with all the condescending remarks.

Ya know, just THINK about it.

 

[ElDuderino]

The bottom line is there is a similarity because it includes the same villain as one of the previous films. Uh...yeah, duh. Is it the same story? Absolutely not.

So, we can ignore the "is this/what is a retread?" discussion and see the comment for what it really is -- a complaint that they're using Zod.

 

[BH/HHH]

Superman Returns would have been better off just doing a remake of Superman the Movie infact if they'd have merged 1 and 2 together they might have actually made a decent up-to-date film.

On Man of Steel I suppose its kind of retreading the first two movies in many ways but it doesn't mean it won't be fresh, yes they're using some of the same characters but so did the Dark Knight to Batman and look how that turned out.

 

[Dr.]

I’m of the opinion that most characters only have a finite number of good/interesting stories in them. You can usually get a lot of dramatic mileage out of an origin. So there’s one chapter. And maybe there are two or three others. After that, there’s repetition and diminishing returns. Better then to take a break… and reboot the whole thing.

In terms of the basic Superman/antagonist template, there are only a few options. Lex is one model. He’s human, more-or-less restricted to conventional technology, etc. Cunning is his main weapon. Then there are the super-powered foes who are Supes’ physical equals. But these are all variations on a theme. So had MOS changed Zod of Krypton to Doz of Rigel IX, the modest alteration would still evoke, I think, comparisons to SII. And with Zod, there’s the obvious opportunity to introduce a common back-story for more intense, personal conflict - one that "generic space villain" can’t supply.

Put it this way: retell the Robin Hood mythos, and the Sheriff of Nottingham (or someone very much like him) will eventually appear. Likewise Holmes and Moriarty. And likewise Superman and Zod. Finite stories.

 

[Lord]

Considering how much Nolan seems to like Superman: The Movie, i think it will feel like a retreat in many ways, but we'll see.

 

[The Overlord]

Oh good grief, who the hell cares?! From everything that we have seen so far, this looks to be a badass movie that us Superman fans deserve! The only similarities this will have to Superman II are the names. Plus, I'm sure that Zod and co. will want to take over the world, but what villain doesn't ultimately want to rule in some shape or form? What is the point in arguing over such minute crap? It's just not worth the time and effort.

I care, because if this movie is another retread I would be disappointed with it, I perfer the Superman movies do something we haven't seen before, rather rehashing a lot of the same elements from the past. Here's a good question, how will Zod's character or plans be different from what we saw in Superman II? Will Zod still have a grudge against Jor-El for imprisoning him, will he try to conquer the world with his super powers? Exactly how will Zod be different in this movie then in Superman II?

Heck if they had Zod and some other villain that hasn't appeared in the Silver screen yet, that would be fun. The Dark Knight was about Harvey Dent's fall and it involved Joker ruining Harvey's life and turning him into Two-Face. Two-Face was not present in the 89 Batman movie, was he? That was a different element. Also Joker's social experiment wasn't in the 89 Batman either.

The thing is, if Dark Knight was the first movie Nolan made it wouldn't have been as successful as it was. Having Joker in the first Nolan film would have been a mistake, having Batman's origin and using other villains worked better in Batman Begins, rather trying to use Joker again right away. That's problem with using Zod again, it seems like playing things too safely and frankly it would lower the stakes if Parasite or Metallo was the villain in the next movie after Zod was the villain in this movie. Zod would work better as a villain with a build up, rather then being the enemy in the first movie. Otherwise who would they use next? Brainiac and have another invading alien villain right away? Or lower the stakes with a street level villain in the next film? It seems like they are shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Dangerman]

Superman Returns would have been better off just doing a remake of Superman the Movie infact if they'd have merged 1 and 2 together they might have actually made a decent up-to-date film.

On Man of Steel I suppose its kind of retreading the first two movies in many ways but it doesn't mean it won't be fresh, yes they're using some of the same characters but so did the Dark Knight to Batman and look how that turned out.

Superman Returns would have been better off if they didn't cut the film and released Superman: The Movie and Superman II:TRDC in theaters before it's (SR) release so than it will seem at least somewhat like a fresh sequel. Superman Returns wasn't even a retread yes it gave some nods to the old movie but in the same it was linked to the old movie.

This movie will not be a retread either yes people might think of it as a mix between the two movies because how very very similar they are. But at the end of the day I am sure it will not feel like the same movie although the plots are almost exactly the same.