Superman Returns

Start
Prev
1
Next
End

10 Jul 2006 02:04 #6167 by YAGS

Superman Returns was created by YAGS

I just saw Superman Returns, and I've got to say, this is one very good movie. I'll have to see it again, nitpick it a little, and think about it some, but I'd almost go so far as to call this the best superhero movie I've ever seen.

On the ubergirl front, this bodes well for the possibility of seeing Supergirl on the big screen again at some point. Superheroes are popular right now, and this movie is doing well, so sequels are likely. Given how badly the original Supergirl flopped, I'd say it's more likely that the character would be added as a sidekick in a Superman movie than given her own film again. So let's hope for lots of sequels... they have to keep going until they get to her.

YAGS

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

YAGS
Topic Author
Offline
Premium Member

10 Jul 2006 02:52 #6168 by jdrock24

Replied by jdrock24 on topic Re: Superman Returns

My only problem (and it's a big problem) was.......

*s

*p

*o

*i

*l

*e

*r

*s

.....The Kid! Superman would not have a kid out of wedlock! I don't think Ma and Pa Kent brought him up like that. They brought him up to always do the right thing. Somehow, I don't think doing the dirty deed with Lois and then taking off into space for five years qualifies as "the right thing". Come on! Read a comic before you ruin the character Singer.

As for Supergirl making an appearance, I hope you're right. But we'll probably have a Superboy now before Supergirl.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

jdrock24
Offline
Elite Member

10 Jul 2006 05:12 #6169 by YAGS

Replied by YAGS on topic Re: Superman Returns

My only problem (and it's a big problem) was.......

*s

*p

*o

*i

*l

*e

*r

*s

.....The Kid! Superman would not have a kid out of wedlock! I don't think Ma and Pa Kent brought him up like that. They brought him up to always do the right thing. Somehow, I don't think doing the dirty deed with Lois and then taking off into space for five years qualifies as "the right thing". Come on! Read a comic before you ruin the character Singer.

As for Supergirl making an appearance, I hope you're right. But we'll probably have a Superboy now before Supergirl.

Remember, this is a sequel to the first two movies with Christopher Reeve. They did sleep together in the second one, when he gave up his powers to be with her, but he had to give her up when he got his powers back. Apparently, he didn't know she was pregnant when he left. It's a little convoluted, but it works.

The part that confused me is that she knew it was Supe's kid. Her memory got wiped at the end of the second movie. She doesn't remember that Clark is Superman, so how does she remember sleeping with him?

YAGS

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

YAGS
Topic Author
Offline
Premium Member

10 Jul 2006 06:55 #6171 by shadar

Replied by shadar on topic Re: Superman Returns

I agree it was foreshadowed in II, but as I remember it, Lois' memory that Clark is Superman has been erased, but she certainly remembers having a relationship with Superman. The way she looks at him when he returns in Return is great.

As far as the outside wedlock thing... its a nit in 21st century America. And Superman and Lois aren't exactly the marrying kinds.

So I don't think Singer damaged the character of Superman, but rather gave him some new dimension to explore. Fatherhood. I think its brilliant.

Now if the kid had just been a girl, we'd have it made. The only place I saw that in the comics was in Generations, where Superman and Lois had a daughter named Kara (in memory of her dead aunt). She was also Supergirl. A great series, but they killed her off way too soon, which was dramatic (it was on her wedding day no less), but still a waste of a great character.

Shadar

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

shadar
Offline
Uberposter par Excellence

10 Jul 2006 14:37 #6173 by lfan

Replied by lfan on topic Re: Superman Returns

Throwing in my $.02, I was left shaking my head over the whole "kid" thing. To me, the Superman (and Batman) mythos are the most established and well-known in pop culture -- powers, persoanlity, supporting cast, rogue's gallery, origin. In my mind, you don't tamper with something so established (notice, I avoided the "sacred" adjective). I'm not one of these fanboys that cry and scream when any deviation from the comics and continuity are "sacrileged", but to me, making Superman a dad was not a great play. But even more than introducing the kid in this movie, I question what are they gonna do with him in future installments.

I persoanlly thought IF they kept the kid in, it woulda been better NOT totally revealing it (especially to Supes). I mean even near the end, it was still assumed but never confirmed -- each of the "reveal/clue" scenes (Lex with the Green K, piano scene, meat locker) were never really clenchers to the audience's eye. Woulda been best IMO to keep the audience guessing and not have Superman know. Oh well....

Overall, I thought the FX were top notch and thought the cast was very good. Eerie how much Brandon Routh looks like Christopher Reeve....

Touching on the ubergril speculation topic, anyone catch Ma's line about "Who knows if you are the only one left..." Maybe foreshadowing?

Peace
Lf

I agree it was foreshadowed in II, but as I remember it, Lois' memory that Clark is Superman has been erased, but she certainly remembers having a relationship with Superman. The way she looks at him when he returns in Return is great.

As far as the outside wedlock thing... its a nit in 21st century America. And Superman and Lois aren't exactly the marrying kinds.

So I don't think Singer damaged the character of Superman, but rather gave him some new dimension to explore. Fatherhood. I think its brilliant.

Now if the kid had just been a girl, we'd have it made. The only place I saw that in the comics was in Generations, where Superman and Lois had a daughter named Kara (in memory of her dead aunt). She was also Supergirl. A great series, but they killed her off way too soon, which was dramatic (it was on her wedding day no less), but still a waste of a great character.

Shadar

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

lfan
Offline
Administrator

10 Jul 2006 18:28 #6177 by taliesan

Replied by taliesan on topic Re: Superman Returns

Yeah, the FX were top notch. I just couldn't get into the film becasue it seems that everwhere you turned, it was trying to re-create I & II instead of just continuing. How many bits and lines did they copy from the first film alone? I guess I just wish that the film was given a chance to stand on it's own instead of trying to re-capture past glories. And I don't think I'm alone. It took just over a week for Superman Returns to generate over $120 million. Pirates of the Carabean 2, which was far less hyped, IMO, broke $120 million in just it's first 3 days, and on a non-holiday weekend.

Was Superman Returns good? Yes. Was it as good as it could have been? No. Not with the tallent they had. And certainly not compared to what Christopher Nolan achieved with Batman Begins, even if Superman Returns ends up making more money.

On the return of Supergirl, I think that's pretty much a given. Also, since the powers that be seem to be focusing on preserving the old continuity, the original Supergirl film and set up still fit into the mold. Supergirl took place before Superman 3, so timeline-wise, it's still valid. Also, in Supergirl, Superman was missing becase he was on a mission of peace to a galaxy several million light years away (or some other impossible astornomical figure). That could be explained as the return trip to the remains of Krypton.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

taliesan
Offline
Junior Member

10 Jul 2006 20:23 #6181 by lfan

Replied by lfan on topic Re: Superman Returns

Agree with some of your commentary -- they seemed more pre-occupied in following continuity and "getting everyone up to speed" rather than exploring the plot (Lex's scheme). I agree with you on the homage to Superman II though to the point that I was mapping everything to the previous movie -- did anyone else think that the first crystal Lex put in was gonna play "Tree" by Joyce Kilmer?

Regarding it "faltering" at the box office though, I think it had a couple of strikes against PofC and Batman. PofC is fresh in people's minds from a couple of years ago and has the built-in Disney audience to springboard it, without the need for extra marketing (though I saw a ton of marketing for it)

As for comparing it with Batman Begins (which I think is prob the best comic film to date), I think its unfair as BB is far more driven by story and cinematography cause of his lack of superpowers and his personality. SM is larger than life itself so its only natural that the lionshare of the budget goes to FX to make him come to life and seem real -- in terms of FX, I thought SM brought it home. The plane scene was muy cool!!

LF

Yeah, the FX were top notch. I just couldn't get into the film becasue it seems that everwhere you turned, it was trying to re-create I & II instead of just continuing. How many bits and lines did they copy from the first film alone? I guess I just wish that the film was given a chance to stand on it's own instead of trying to re-capture past glories. And I don't think I'm alone. It took just over a week for Superman Returns to generate over $120 million. Pirates of the Carabean 2, which was far less hyped, IMO, broke $120 million in just it's first 3 days, and on a non-holiday weekend.

Was Superman Returns good? Yes. Was it as good as it could have been? No. Not with the tallent they had. And certainly not compared to what Christopher Nolan achieved with Batman Begins, even if Superman Returns ends up making more money.

On the return of Supergirl, I think that's pretty much a given. Also, since the powers that be seem to be focusing on preserving the old continuity, the original Supergirl film and set up still fit into the mold. Supergirl took place before Superman 3, so timeline-wise, it's still valid. Also, in Supergirl, Superman was missing becase he was on a mission of peace to a galaxy several million light years away (or some other impossible astornomical figure). That could be explained as the return trip to the remains of Krypton.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

lfan
Offline
Administrator

11 Jul 2006 00:27 #6186 by YAGS

Replied by YAGS on topic Re: Superman Returns

Since everyone's comparing to Batman Begins, I'll add my two cents on that.

Some people would call me nitpicky, but I just can't ignore some of the major alterations to the Batman character in that movie. Some of Batman's defining characteristics were changed.

First, they made him rely on others for the scientific stuff, and have a hard time following when they explained it to him. In every past version, he's always been a brilliant scientist himself. After all, he's supposed to be the world's greatest detective, not just a good fighter with cool gadgets.

Second, there was the line at the end of the movie, where he said something like, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you, either." Definitely out of character. How many times has he saved The Joker or some other villain? I know plenty of people have complained in the past that it doesn't make sense for him to keep saving these psychos, but he really does want to help rehabilitate them. His relationship with Two-Face in the 90's cartoon was a brilliant ongoing storyline that revolved around this.

Adding so many characters who know his secret ID so early in his career also goes against the whole "loner" persona, but even I'm not nitpicky enough to think that's a major problem. The other two, though, really did go against the fundamental nature of the character in ways that I can't get past.

And as myself and others have said with regard to Superman Returns, the kid actually makes sense, and it adds an interesting new dimension to the character. I think this has the potential to lead to some interesting stories. So how long does everyone think it'll take before Lois and Clark have a kid in the comics (where they are married)?

YAGS

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

YAGS
Topic Author
Offline
Premium Member

11 Jul 2006 05:47 #6190 by taliesan

Replied by taliesan on topic Re: Superman Returns

Regarding it "faltering" at the box office though, I think it had a couple of strikes against PofC and Batman. PofC is fresh in people's minds from a couple of years ago and has the built-in Disney audience to springboard it, without the need for extra marketing (though I saw a ton of marketing for it)

Possibly. But my point is that there has been enough anticipation from the fan comunity to provide a springboard. And it just seems that the recent trend in 're-establishing' film franchises that have a tremendous following has kind of fallen flat in recent years. For example, Phantom Menace. With the fan base and anticipation, that film should have blown Titanic out of the water and set sales records across the board. Instead, it did very well, but not nearly as good as it could have. Hollywood just seems to be settling for 'okay' when they have a film property that has phenominal fan loyalty and interest.

Then again maybe I'm just being a crotchety old bastard who can't accept that nothing that i enjoyed as a child will be as good when remade when I'm an adult

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

taliesan
Offline
Junior Member

11 Jul 2006 20:58 #6213 by jdrock24

Replied by jdrock24 on topic Re: Superman Returns

Then again maybe I'm just being a crotchety old bastard who can't accept that nothing that i enjoyed as a child will be as good when remade when I'm an adult Smile

Me too!

Anyway, I don't see anything interesting about a "Superkid". Just about every TV show ever, near the end of its run, always brings in a cute kid to try and juice the ratings a little bit. How is this any different? You mean to tell me that they couldn't come up with any other angle besides "the cute kid" angle? Give me a break....

Batman Begins was a great movie. It beats the pants off of Superman Returns. However, you make some good points Yags. I hate the fact that Batman has to reveal his secret ID to everyone and that "I don't have to save you" comment struck me as very wierd the first time I saw it. But I think the reason he "didn't have to save him" was because Batman knew about the "Pit" that brings Al Ghul back to life and hence, he was going to survive anyway, so he really didn't have to save him. Or maybe I just keep telling myself that because I've always been a bigger Batman fan than a Superman one.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

jdrock24
Offline
Elite Member

Start
Prev
1
Next
End

Time to create page: 0.070 seconds