Is "Superman Returns" epic?

[stargazer01]

Some "fans" were talking about this in another forum... so I wanted to know what you guys think about this interesting subject.


Here are some definitions I found on the word EPIC:

Narrated in a grand style; pertaining to or designating a kind of narrative poem, usually called an heroic poem, in which real or fictitious events, usually the achievements of some hero, are narrated in an elevated style.


An extended narrative poem in elevated or dignified language, celebrating the feats of a legendary or traditional hero.

Surpassing the usual or ordinary, particularly in scope or size

heroic; majestic; impressively great

[Legsy]

I wouldn't say it's epic, but it's a damn good flick. I think I just might put it on. Yes, I will. I have tomorrow off!

[ye5man]

Tries to be

an epic fail you might say

[EvilSupes]

I put "Not sure what epic really means." because I'm n00b and generally awkward.

[Jack Tripper]

don't really find it epic at all. STM is epic.

[Paul (ral)]

Oct 12, 2009 10:09:08 GMT -5 Jack Tripper said:

don't really find it epic at all. STM is epic.

agreed - though it pains me so.

[stargazer01]

Oct 11, 2009 22:54:07 GMT -5 Legsy said:

I wouldn't say it's epic, but it's a damn good flick. I think I just might put it on. Yes, I will. I have tomorrow off!

Why not? Can you elaborate please?



manetoys said,
"don't really find it epic at all. STM is epic."

What makes STM epic and SR not in your opinion? Please give examples.

[atp]

Oct 12, 2009 11:19:41 GMT -5 @stargazer01 said:

What makes STM epic and SR not in your opinion? Please give examples.

being good, for a start.

[EvilSupes]

I think I may know what they are saying, but this is only my own interpretation. I think with STM its was the first of its kind; ground breaking, never really been done before. So by that, it's quite epic. Furthermore, I think a lot of it is down to childhood exerperience and seeing a movie like that as a child will always be better than a similar movie seen later in life (I go by my own experience here).


SR , as great as it is, (for people that have seen STM) there's always that comparison. For young kids these days, I would imagine SR would be very epic to them, as STM was for a lot of people's child hood/young life experience here...

I'm not saying in anyway SR sucks here (it's my 2nd favourite superman movie) but I think if I hadn't had seen STM first as a child I think things would be different in terms of epicness.

[stargazer01]

Oct 12, 2009 12:10:39 GMT -5 atp said:

Oct 12, 2009 11:19:41 GMT -5 @stargazer01 said:

What makes STM epic and SR not in your opinion? Please give examples.

being good, for a start.

Wow I'm impressed with your answer, all this elaboration and examples just blow my mind....

Really, Is this the best you can do? I'm sure you can do a little better if you try.



Evilsupes,

I never compared SR to STM in my first post. I'd like to know if people here consider SR Epic in its own terms. It's not that hard to understand, is it?

I even gave some definitions of what the word EPIC means. That should be of some help, no?

[Jimbo]

I don't know if "epic" is the right term.

Not much happens in it that is unique; it doesn't stand on its own. It's so incredibly tied to STM.

What happens in this? He comes to Metropolis, tries to create a relationship with Lois, he saves Lois from dying, and he stops Lex Luthor from enacting a giant land scheme which would kill millions, nearly dying in the process. Familiar?

I think "epic" should be saved for 3-hour character pieces and/or biopics which span many years. Something like Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, Braveheart, heck, even maybe Forrest Gump.

[stargazer01]

Oct 12, 2009 12:38:50 GMT -5 Jimbo said:

I don't know if "epic" is the right term.

Not much happens in it that is unique; it doesn't stand on its own. It's so incredibly tied to STM.

What happens in this? He comes to Metropolis, tries to create a relationship with Lois, he saves Lois from dying, and he stops Lex Luthor from enacting a giant land scheme which would kill millions, nearly dying in the process. Familiar?

I think "epic" should be saved for 3-hour character pieces and/or biopics which span many years. Something like Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, Braveheart, heck, even maybe Forrest Gump.

If you read the definitions of the term EPIC I offered, I think a character like Superman --and ALL the amazing things he can do-- is inherently epic.

And sure SR is a sequel to the first two movies, but it also works as an stand alone, imo. You don't really have to watch STM or S2 in order to understand it.



I'll post the definitions again:

Narrated in a grand style; pertaining to or designating a kind of narrative poem, usually called an heroic poem, in which real or fictitious events, usually the achievements of some hero, are narrated in an elevated style.


An extended narrative poem in elevated or dignified language, celebrating the feats of a legendary or traditional hero.

Surpassing the usual or ordinary, particularly in scope or size

heroic; majestic; impressively great

[Jimbo]

Well, if no one else can provide a definition to "epic", then this poll is inherently scewed.

But even by your definition, I don't find it "narrated in a grand scale". The choppy editing prevented that. The movie opens up to an old woman in bed, totally unrelated to the main character.

Perhaps if we had the Krypton sequences, it'd be closer to "epic".

[stargazer01]

^Hey, I respect your opinion; at least you elaborated on your ideas other than "it is not STM so it sucks" or stuff like that.

[Legsy]

Oct 12, 2009 11:19:41 GMT -5 @stargazer01 said:

Oct 11, 2009 22:54:07 GMT -5 Legsy said:

I wouldn't say it's epic, but it's a damn good flick. I think I just might put it on. Yes, I will. I have tomorrow off!

Why not? Can you elaborate please?

What Jimbo said.

Oct 12, 2009 12:38:50 GMT -5 Jimbo said:

I don't know if "epic" is the right term.

Not much happens in it that is unique; it doesn't stand on its own. It's so incredibly tied to STM.

What happens in this? He comes to Metropolis, tries to create a relationship with Lois, he saves Lois from dying, and he stops Lex Luthor from enacting a giant land scheme which would kill millions, nearly dying in the process. Familiar?

I think "epic" should be saved for 3-hour character pieces and/or biopics which span many years. Something like Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, Braveheart, heck, even maybe Forrest Gump.

[Jimbo]

Oct 12, 2009 14:52:33 GMT -5 @stargazer01 said:

^Hey, I respect your opinion; at least you elaborated on your ideas other than "it is not STM so it sucks" or stuff like that.

Tee hee.

[EvilSupes]

Oct 12, 2009 12:31:48 GMT -5 @stargazer01 said:

Evilsupes,

I never compared SR to STM in my first post. I'd like to know if people here consider SR Epic in its own terms. It's not that hard to understand, is it?

I even gave some definitions of what the word EPIC means. That should be of some help, no?

I didn't say you was comparing star, I was just saying I think I may know why people don't think it's 'epic'. But of course this is just a guess, and probably is completely wrong, but heck nobody is perfect right?

[Deleted]

I say it's epic.

My idea of epic is grand in scope and design, takes place in many locations, is well acted, memorably scored, has classic character designs, incredible visual and audible stimuli, has extreme occurrences that don't normally occur in movies, etc.

[EnriqueH]

I voted "Not really".

I enjoyed it a lot, saw it about three times in the theater, but its flaws have become more glaring with repeat viewings.

For the first Superman film in years, not a whole heck of a lot has changed. (See Jimbo's post in this thread, since he put it perfectly.)

Unlike a lot of people here, I *did* like Jason and found that to be the most unique plot twist. It would be seem obvious in hindsight, but sitting in the theater, I didn't see it coming.

The handling of Luthor was a MONUMENTAL disappointment. Though I liked Spacey in the role, I thought Luthor had evolved from his 70s persona into a more sophisticated, dangerous CEO type. I was disappointed that he was still being treated like a buffoon, especially after John Shea portrayed the character so well in L&C. Ok, they tried to make him tougher at the end by having him stab Superman, but I thought it was too little too late. He was still surrounded by idiots and laughing manically and walking around in bathrobes with a toothbrush in his mouth and rambling about land. Again, I would've thought Bryan Singer would've come up with a more elegant approach after such a great job with the first two X-Men films. The approach he chose worked great in the 70s, but not now.

[Olly H 82]

I say not really. It tries to be epic but story and the shots Bryan Singer decided on let it down. There is moments at the fortress and the final confrontation between Lex and Supes where you can see there trying to make it feel and look epic, using lots of wide angle shots to greater effect.

But the film doesn't have many locations. The metropolis feels small you don't get a sense of grand scale or feel to it. Everything is a set piece apart from the long shots and lets it down.

One of my favourite scenes that was perfectly shot and wouldn't want any other way is the return of superman. When the starship crashes in the reflection of the window..Amazing.

[EvilSupes]

Yeah that shot sequence of him returning was amazing, as was the sound rumbling over the house. Loved that.

[SGB]

It's epic, all right.

An epic failure to be exact.

[ye5man]

How many times have you seen it Guru?

[SGB]

Just once.

[ye5man]

Sorry, how many times have you got laid again??