ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jan 16, 2011 19:00:55 GMT -5
IMO, Trek was better than BB, much better than SR, and wiped the floor with TDK Fuck, I need to see ST 09 again, now! Why was I wasting my time with SR the other night?
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Jan 16, 2011 21:25:52 GMT -5
Can't disagree. There's a LOT going on in Superman Returns. I'm not sure if people just can't stand that it's not a straight forward comic book hero movie, or if they just don't WANT to acknowledge everything that's happening in the movie, but, yeah, SR is a completely different beast than STM and S2 despite the throwbacks. heck, there's no other comic book movie like it. It's a ponderous, beautiful poem in a sea of taglines and money shots. Disagree all you want, chalk it up to the "cheap" dialogue or Bosworth or Lex's plot or whatever, those are pretty weak reasons to think the movie's crap, but I personally think SR is an incredibly deep, beautiful and misunderstood movie. You are all welcome, of course, to shit on it because it tried something different, despite also complaining that it's too similar. Nothing more needs to be said. Will you Marry me?
|
|
matt
New Member
Posts: 2,537
|
Post by matt on Jan 16, 2011 21:34:26 GMT -5
I hope they release the return to Krypton sequence for the next blu ray release of the movie. I would like if they brightened the movie also.
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jan 16, 2011 23:31:09 GMT -5
Can't disagree. There's a LOT going on in Superman Returns. I'm not sure if people just can't stand that it's not a straight forward comic book hero movie, or if they just don't WANT to acknowledge everything that's happening in the movie, but, yeah, SR is a completely different beast than STM and S2 despite the throwbacks. heck, there's no other comic book movie like it. It's a ponderous, beautiful poem in a sea of taglines and money shots. Disagree all you want, chalk it up to the "cheap" dialogue or Bosworth or Lex's plot or whatever, those are pretty weak reasons to think the movie's crap, but I personally think SR is an incredibly deep, beautiful and misunderstood movie. You are all welcome, of course, to shit on it because it tried something different, despite also complaining that it's too similar. Huh, Kevin's above review reminded me a lot of how I feel about Star Trek: The Motion Picture. I haven't seen SR in a while. I loved it at the cinemas all three times that I saw it. In recent months, I've come to view the film in a more negative light...kinda how I feel about Licence to Kill, another decent movie that...for reasons I can't explain...I just love to nitpick. When I think of SR these days, I think of the incredibly awkward portrayal of Jimmy Olsen. I think of the film's confused, wishy-washy identity---is it or isn't it a sequel? And for that matter, is Lex serious or is he tongue-in-cheek. I think about the irony of the title...Superman Returns...to get his ass kicked by nameless thugs and spend the whole movie getting hurt physically and emotionally...yet there's no supervillains at all, just thugs. I think about how overused Kryptonite is in general...and how it's used several times in the film. I think about how the first time I see Superman in this film, he's crawling feebly out of a ship. I think about plain Parker Posey is in this film...and miss Valerie Perrine's sexy, old-school-broad attitude. I think about how Spacey and Posey had no chemistry and just come off as a brother-sister type duo. I think about how tired I am of "just Lex Luthor" and no supervillains. I think about how they should've just thrown in a supervillain, even if only for a pre-credits sequence. It's a superhero film but they need to put the hero in superhero film because it's not very heroic. And it's definitely not super... It's just...there. I see what they were going for...actually, I don't. What WERE they going for? EMO? I liked the kid angle, thought it was ballsy. I liked Cyclops as the dad, he was good. I liked Brandon Routh, though his performance felt a bit restrained. I thought Spacey did well considering his Luthor was not particularly well written IMO. And of course, I loved the references to the Donnerverse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2011 2:22:53 GMT -5
The film definitely has its problems, there's absolutely no denying that, but the way it was directed, the good stuff in it, it just wins hard over the lame stuff for me. Like the Lex plot (it really does make no sense, but he IS insane) and Bosworth and Jimmy's intro. It's quite awkward. But that's how he was directed, I suppose. But overall, I find the directing Singer did to be just fantastic. I get what he tried to do.
While Bosworth isn't all that great in a lot of it, she does quite well in some scenes. But the stuff between her and Routh, I barely pay attention to her in it. Routh's just so goddamn great as Superman and Clark.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 17, 2011 2:34:26 GMT -5
Imo, they were trying to find a way to re-introduce what is essentially a 'pure' character into today's fairly dark and cynical world--- and Singer's take on the Donner interpretation was so 'right' in many ways, that I think they also wanted to find a way to keep that, as well as update it.
Given the difficulties of what they were up against, I think that they did a REMARKABLE job. The pluses outweighed the minuses to me, but the three things I've mentioned I would have changed were:
#1: Integrating a supervillain- even if they had to have Lex recreate some sort of Nuclear Man (*shudder*), I still think that if there had been a kickarse action set piece, that the naysayers would have been fine with the rest. Even Dougherty, one of the screenwriters, was begging for more superheroics.
#2: Either it's a sequel or it's not, I agree. The contradictory details in rewatching the film are a bit irritating, though it's not as bad as having to ignore STM's turning back time (which one more/less has to ignore & focus on the good parts of that film) or SII's Lester Metro slapstick antics. No Superman film has been flaw-free yet, imo.
#3: Lex's scheme and the sort-of duplication of Lex as real estate con man was not a strong point for the film- Lex worked in STM because we saw how he fit in as a counterbalance (or would have if Donner had his way) to the Phantom Zone Criminals' seriousness afterwards, but even though it's watchable- it's not a strong point of the film. Singer raised his darkness up a notch by mentioning that spending time in prison made him darker, but Lex was a missed opportunity for re-invention--- the early reinvention of Lex in Smallville by Rosenbaum & the showrunners was far more effective imo.
But still- the personal story of Supes is daring and fantastic- to me, it took the elements that have existed for Superman for years & yet pushed it forward by adding even more human dimension to it via his return & being made aware that the world could go on without him & the existence of his son.
The flip side is that the superhero-ey stuff was a bit of a letdown to me. But I could see what the priorities were for Singer: he wanted to find a way to make the character stay within the borders of what had been established, but still push the personal story so that people could relate.
The worldwide boxoffice to me was actually a suprise that it did so well (though the unpleasant suprise later on is that $380 mil was considered a disappointment) : I loved it, but I already felt that there might not be enough superheroics to make it a blockbuster even on first viewing, and that it had to compete with all the superheroics of films that came after STM first came out.
SR is the first part of a story; it kills me to this day that Singer didn't get a chance to make the second part of it- which was already supposed to be full of action & might have made everyone happy. Pity.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jan 17, 2011 6:47:11 GMT -5
Awesome post Cam
+1
Enrique, I also see where you're coming from with ST:TMP
|
|
|
Post by lois on Jan 17, 2011 10:59:18 GMT -5
Can't disagree. There's a LOT going on in Superman Returns. I'm not sure if people just can't stand that it's not a straight forward comic book hero movie, or if they just don't WANT to acknowledge everything that's happening in the movie, but, yeah, SR is a completely different beast than STM and S2 despite the throwbacks. heck, there's no other comic book movie like it. It's a ponderous, beautiful poem in a sea of taglines and money shots. Disagree all you want, chalk it up to the "cheap" dialogue or Bosworth or Lex's plot or whatever, those are pretty weak reasons to think the movie's crap, but I personally think SR is an incredibly deep, beautiful and misunderstood movie. You are all welcome, of course, to shit on it because it tried something different, despite also complaining that it's too similar. Very well said! I've been a Superman fan for over 40 years. SR had heart and character. I remember seeing STM in the theater way back in 78. Loved it! Saw Superman II in 81 in the theaters. IMHO SR sits proudly with the rest of my extensive Superman collection which includes: the Kirk Alyn Superman serials, George Reeves Superman TV series, Superboy pilot from the '50's on VHS, Lois & Clark, STM, SII, SII :The Richard Donner Cut, SIII, SIV, Supergirl : The Director's Cut(adventure runs in the family , Smallville, the Fleischer Superman cartoons, A copy of the very 1st Superman comic...and more... The opening sequence in SR beautifully shot and oh the music...beautiful...when you saw Clark Kent in SR you didn't think that it was an actor portraying CK it was CK! and when Superman appeared...WOW It WAS Superman not an actor portraying Superman. Singer was brilliant in his casting choices of Routh as Superman, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. I can even see why Lois appeared as she did in the movie. Superman had been away for five years, so, she could have been sad/depressed...wouldn't you be? I loved the idea of Superman being heroic and at the same time vulnerable. Wasn't dark and brooding to me. It was uplifting. I've seen STM over the years so many times I've lost count. SR is NOT a carbon copy of that movie. No, it's an homage to the character. If Chris Reeve were alive today he would be very proud of SR and love it as much as I do and many of my friends who are long, long time Superman fans and many, many other Superman fans as well. Ah yes..You can still believe a man can fly. SR will be treasured by many, many fans of Superman for years to come. And in the words of one of my favorite comic book editors... 'nuff said!'
|
|
|
Post by lois on Jan 17, 2011 11:10:01 GMT -5
Can't disagree. There's a LOT going on in Superman Returns. I'm not sure if people just can't stand that it's not a straight forward comic book hero movie, or if they just don't WANT to acknowledge everything that's happening in the movie, but, yeah, SR is a completely different beast than STM and S2 despite the throwbacks. heck, there's no other comic book movie like it. It's a ponderous, beautiful poem in a sea of taglines and money shots. Disagree all you want, chalk it up to the "cheap" dialogue or Bosworth or Lex's plot or whatever, those are pretty weak reasons to think the movie's crap, but I personally think SR is an incredibly deep, beautiful and misunderstood movie. You are all welcome, of course, to shit on it because it tried something different, despite also complaining that it's too similar. Nothing more needs to be said. Will you Marry me? I second that! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jan 17, 2011 12:57:09 GMT -5
The film definitely has its problems, there's absolutely no denying that, but the way it was directed, the good stuff in it, it just wins hard over the lame stuff for me. Like the Lex plot (it really does make no sense, but he IS insane) and Bosworth and Jimmy's intro. It's quite awkward. But that's how he was directed, I suppose. But overall, I find the directing Singer did to be just fantastic. I get what he tried to do. While Bosworth isn't all that great in a lot of it, she does quite well in some scenes. But the stuff between her and Routh, I barely pay attention to her in it. Routh's just so goddamn great as Superman and Clark. my first, biggest and most consistant grievance with SR is the missed oppurtunities. - a chance to reintroduce lex as the byrne-esque corporate tool - a cliffhanger finale, with a tease of brainiac or something that would have helped immensely with anticipation - a physical opponet for superman, early draftes reportedly had superman taking on a METALLO type of villain, thatd be cool. but, all in all its a fine film, beautiful. so glad we didnt get abrams or burton or mcg.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Jan 17, 2011 13:02:40 GMT -5
The film definitely has its problems, there's absolutely no denying that, but the way it was directed, the good stuff in it, it just wins hard over the lame stuff for me. Like the Lex plot (it really does make no sense, but he IS insane) and Bosworth and Jimmy's intro. It's quite awkward. But that's how he was directed, I suppose. But overall, I find the directing Singer did to be just fantastic. I get what he tried to do. While Bosworth isn't all that great in a lot of it, she does quite well in some scenes. But the stuff between her and Routh, I barely pay attention to her in it. Routh's just so goddamn great as Superman and Clark. my first, biggest and most consistant grievance with SR is the missed oppurtunities. - a chance to reintroduce lex as the byrne-esque corporate tool - a cliffhanger finale, with a tease of brainiac or something that would have helped immensely with anticipation - a physical opponet for superman, early draftes reportedly had superman taking on a METALLO type of villain, thatd be cool. but, all in all its a fine film, beautiful. so glad we didnt get abrams or burton or mcg. As a big fan of the film, I can understand these complaints, though I really liked Lex in the movie for the most part; I don't think his evil plan was as bad as some say, and I liked that he was funny but very sinister at the same time. The only scene that I didn't like with him was the last one. Just didn't appreciate his yelling, it came off as too campy, meh.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jan 17, 2011 13:24:08 GMT -5
Why did Superman have to be away for 5 years which set up the gloomy tone in the first place? Why not a classic return to high adventure in the spirit of the WB 1996 cartoons? Right off the bat it was never going to be a bright film. And for what real purpose?
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jan 17, 2011 16:17:18 GMT -5
IMO, Trek was better than BB, much better than SR, and wiped the floor with TDK Fuck, I need to see ST 09 again, now! Why was I wasting my time with SR the other night? i couldnt be more opposite. SR was not everything i'd hoped for, but then my expectations were unrealistic. my gripes with SR notwithstanding i find it much more satisfying than ST'o9. with abrams-trek, it was a big dumb fun eye candy spectacle that teetered on the brink of being too dumb/spoofish. i loved it, still do. but as time goes by i feel less and less impressed with it. its fun to watch, but it will NEVER be the classic that the others are. its actually my least faveorit star trek movie. not that thats bad, because i'm silly over trek but its down in the lower ten or eleven. at best i fear snyder making a yee-ha,woo-hoo superman movie that we like for a few months and then we wonder why something so thin consumed us so much. as to BB and TDK, i have to put them ahead of abrams trek for the fact that nolan gave me the batman movies i always wanted but never thought i'd see. crime thrillers with batman in them. with them the humor is witty, subtle and character driven. not oral sex jokes ( 'you've got a talented tongue" ) or sex jokes in general ( sex with farm animals...well, not only...) or what have you. it was the same mindset that made masturbation jokes seem like a good idea for transformers.
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jan 17, 2011 16:17:48 GMT -5
i DO love your avatar and signature though.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jan 17, 2011 17:07:56 GMT -5
Haha, fair enough I've seen Trek only twice, so maybe it won't hold up on repeated viewings. TDK feels pretty mediocre these days. Film never really takes off for me.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Feb 8, 2011 2:20:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 8, 2011 2:41:21 GMT -5
Nice review, Star! I think the point that I really like highlighted here is that the movie had the audacity to take the material INCREDIBLY serious (outside of Lex, but that's another story)... possibly more serious than any superhero film so far (except perhaps 'The Dark Knight'), and doesn't lighten up and treat itself like 'just a popcorn film'. 'Superman Returns' is actually a character study, more than anything else. It does take Superman and give him the introspective 'X-men' take on it, with Superman as the ultimate outsider, without having Superman go see a psychiatrist (which an earlier script actually had Superman doing) for depression or do something far outside of his character*. (*Although there are those who question him eavesdropping on Lois & family. Valid point- in hindsight, the writers could have found another way for the hero to coincidentally overhear them, versus out and out going to her house, but to me it's a minor bit of him going out of character.) I know that fans are split on whether or not the X-men/Marvel comics' type treatment was appropriate for Superman, but to me, it totally works & made the film far more interesting to me than many of the comics have over the years. (And I've read a fair number of the Superman comics over the years) But- God bless Singer for treating the film as if he HAD to make it his way. While I still wring my hands to this day that he didn't include more superheroics to bring in more box office in SR to guarantee a sequel, SR has a special spot on my dvd mantle. Singer dared to aim higher than most superhero films try to do, and express something that meant something to him--- whether anyone agreed with it or not is another matter, though. Hopefully he WILL finish his story, even if it has to be in a book or comic form at this point. *Sigh*
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Feb 8, 2011 13:20:28 GMT -5
Out of character? Hasn't he done it other times in other incarnations? It never bothered me. On the contrary, it made me realized just how lonely and desperate he was feeling in that time. It made him more human, and I liked that. It's not like he raped or killed someone. Yes, he made a mistake (and later paid for it), but it wasn't something he'd be doing all the time I think. It was a way to show his alienation. Like you said, Singer wasn't afraid to take it absolutely seriously. He showed it throughout the film.
Overall, I agree with you. Oh well..
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,813
|
Post by atp on Feb 8, 2011 13:55:17 GMT -5
Why did the retard show so many scenes in the trailer which weren't in the movie?
Can anyone say "bait-and-switch"?
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Feb 8, 2011 13:58:48 GMT -5
Much less, don't even appear as deleted scenes.
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Feb 8, 2011 14:35:46 GMT -5
Trek 09 and SR are EQUALLY flawed movies, but their flaws fall on opposite ends of the spectrum. Trek is too much style over substance, and SR could have used a bit MORE style over substance.
I enjoy them both equally as long as I don't think too hard about either one. They're not the fucking Bible, they're just good sci-fi movies. Trek09 boasts pretty much the best special effects I think I've ever seen and a brilliant score and some fun performances. That's all I need from it. SR has a couple of truly iconic Superman moments and one of my favorite live-action portrayals of Superman. That's pretty much enough for me.
heh, in fact, one could say that Trek09 is more like the next Superman film we're likely to get (or ALMOST got, as Abrams' Superman script is no slouch in the spectacle department), and SR was, well...almost like a classic Trek in its more cerebral approach.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 8, 2011 14:55:38 GMT -5
Again, it wasn't a HUGE thing for me.... but it did raise a slight eyebrow on my side. For that situation, it would have been easy enough to have had a slight alteration of the script, that Clark/Supes would have been in hearing range of the same type of discussion at the Daily Planet- and had the same results, only without Supes going outside the house specifically to listen in on the personal stuff.
|
|
|
Post by lois on Feb 9, 2011 20:13:27 GMT -5
Out of character? Hasn't he done it other times in other incarnations? It never bothered me. On the contrary, it made me realized just how lonely and desperate he was feeling in that time. It made him more human, and I liked that. It's not like he raped or killed someone. Yes, he made a mistake (and later paid for it), but it wasn't something he'd be doing all the time I think. It was a way to show his alienation. Like you said, Singer wasn't afraid to take it absolutely seriously. He showed it throughout the film. It didn't bother me either and I liked it too. My cousin who hadn't seen it yet, absolutely loved it. And, he's a big fan of the Chris Reeve Superman films.
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Feb 10, 2011 0:57:26 GMT -5
ok, here's my last bit on this one. it's been 5 years since SR and plenty of time to reflect.
the fact is, superman returns failed. it just did. i'm sorry. i take NO joy in this. i will incur resentment from friends. but it's the truth. what i "want" is neither here nor there. i "want" for bigfoot and loch ness to be real. they aren't. i "wanted" superman returns to be the end-all be-all epic fanatsy film for generations to come. i wanted the picture to own, to show superman in a transcendant, superlative, witty and exciting way to fulfill fan expectations and win over new people like never before. i wanted LOTR, star wars, and citizen caine rolled into one 2 1/2 hour monster film.
oh, it had LOT going for it (reeve clone, donnerverse angle etc) but at the end of the day even those of us that like it, and even those that i know who adore it, in fact folks i know and love who practically worship it- would STILL re-edit it and offer suggestions to improve it. we valiantly defend it agianst the alternative- and we SHOULD- because the alternatives are ghastly, but it simply was NOT what we wanted and needed. it was a stop-gap. something to hold the door lest worse ideas come to fruition.
to be fair, in a way we brought this on ourselves. and we were warned. i remember reading at superman cinema words of wisdom we happily ignored. i remember being admonished NOT to ask for a donner cut of SII - because the movie was NEVER finished and we should accept restored deleted/alternate scenes in a nice doc, then maybe fan cut would let us vicariously imagine what might have been, but nooooooo.... we had to have it and it wasn't anywhere near our hopes/expectations. how could it be? the mystique was off the charts. like star wars prequels! we had TOO LONG to wait, TOO LONG to speculate, TOO LONG to age and grow.. there was NO way a film could live up. and the restraint, the admonishment was right.
and i remember skeptics saying that there was a "pied piper" mentality to the idea of bryan singer. yeah he made great x-men and other flicks- he was going to go back to donnerverse... it seemed soooo perfect.
but superman returns was not what it needed to be. you want to blame greedy WB? go ahead. i have. but while it was unfair to saddle singer with jon peters' debt- the fact is, while WB was diappointed with the $$ returns, they WERE going to let him do another, with ( we have to accept, understandable) conditions. he passed.
WB was going to let singer do SR2 and he passed.
before i get sheckaced, let me point out that i will continue to champion SR over every other competing superman treatment we were aware o,f save for wolfgang peterson's "worlds finest" ( and even then, in theory, going back to donnerverse would have been very desirable ) but i am an adult and i live in real-world. i love fantasy ( i'm here ain't i? ) but i rudder myself with reality. the reality is that SR bit off more than it chewed. a noble attempt, a lofty goal. but it did not accomplish what it set out to do.
yes, it's a fine film. i watch it fortnightly. but i accept that "my" superman ( ie the reeve/donnerverse superman ) is closed. it's a generational thing. i will always have it, and my kids will have nostalgia for it, but the charcater is not mine or yours or any other's in any sense of ownership. i am NOT saying anyone has to "roll" with anything to come down the pike- ( i HAVE been pretty blunt about the snyder flick and smallville, for that matter i never cared for lois and clark!) but superman is in other hands, in other contexts ( "young justice" and " batman brave and bold" are pretty damn cool) and we can't change that.
donner-salkind-verse is over. forever. it was beautiful, it was often goofy sometimes awful. with superman returns we had a gleaming, shining moment to hold up the loftiest bits for just a bit of renaissance before closing the door and sweeping the floor even though we know the wrecking ball is going to raze the building. heck even DC comics thought it ok to bend the official continuity towards donnerverse- , which they hadn't bothered to do back in the donnerverse heyday.
so that's it.
a signifigant episode (which overlapped and was contemporary to several other superman adaptations ) of superman has finished. and we see a new one on the horizon. meanwhile tv shows and cartoons keep coming.
it's been real. i love it, and i'm grateful for it, but it's time to move on.
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Feb 10, 2011 1:42:28 GMT -5
Everything. Every last word you just said. All of it. Cosigned.
|
|