|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 11, 2011 16:58:16 GMT -5
In terms of creative commitment- as soon as Supes says that line- I thought: "WOW. I love this! If this is the way that they're going- then how do they creatively answer how he deals with all the suffering in the 'real' world, without destroying the general fabric of the character and his world?
There was a Paul Dini/Alex Ross Superman oversize painted book that dared to deal with the question directly- showing Superman trying to directly intervene in world problems, and at the end, it followed a train of logic as to why he picks and chooses and (sort of) how he picks and chooses which problems of the world that he'd consider his 'jurisdiction' so to speak.
It was somewhat satisfying, though I know that the problem in itself is complicated once you step into the territory of Supes being in the 'real' world. Mank dealt with it by NOT dealing with it- and for all its faults, I admire SIV for at least giving it a shot, when they could have tried something far less ambitious, if they wanted to.
Now, I don't know HOW much further they should have elaborated on how he decides his place in helping relieve the world's suffering, but I definitely wouldn't have minded a scene close to what they had in Spiderman 2, where a powerless Peter Parker saves a child from a building on fire--- but overhears that another person in the same building wasn't able to get out.
If it were up to me, instead of the 'saving the bank' scene or the 'Miss Kitty' scene, I would have had the scene of Superman ALMOST saving everyone from a calamity..... and have that be something that is shown to just be somewhat realistic in those scenarios, that happens more than once in this world. That even Superman (in this version) can't save everyone and turn back the world/etc.- etc.....and make the suffering he endures carry more substance.... KNOWING he can't save everyone.
Instead, I felt that they didn't go far enough in developing the idea of him REALLY embracing his responsibility as world savior. Yes, he did save the world by lifting the kryptonite at the end- but I would have wanted more of a suggestion (even if it ended up being just a couple of lines of dialogue between Lois/Clark) of how he is the world's savior.
I would have to say, though, that in Singer's version, Superman seems to be far less of an optimist about the world than in Donner's version. The world can't do without him, versus other versions where it feels like he is there 'to help', (and) that the world will still be fine because it's (more/less) in good hands with enough good people in charge. (Donner's version)
It is a darker version in Singer's. Have an odd feeling that it'll still be dark under Snyder/Goyer, or feel like a false positive under Snyder--- if that makes any sense. (It might not, I'm writing this post with not much sleep, so there's that warning)
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 11, 2011 17:20:54 GMT -5
Great post, Cam
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 11, 2011 17:38:11 GMT -5
Yeah, good things to think about, CAM.
In SR, the main action sequences (saving the plane, stopping the mayhem of New Krypton) were caused by his Kryptonian technology. In other words, if Superman never happened, the plot couldn't happen, and there would have been no threat to people. (on the other hand, there wouldn't have been a West coast 30 years prior)
I'd like to see a story where Superman is the outsider who is here to help some issue he could not have been linked to, not the guy who has to clean up someone else's mess because he forgot to install a burglar alarm in the Fortress.
What's the body count in SR? Just Lex's mooks? Gertrude probably doesn't count. It was a wee bit unrealistic that Superman saved everyone, except the meanies who beat him up. At least in STM and S2, we see some deaths that Superman could not prevent.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Mar 11, 2011 18:13:45 GMT -5
But with the 'Superman listening to the cries of the world from space' and 'You wrote that the world doesn't need a saviour' scenes is CLEARLY implied that so much suffering is happening in the world and that not even Superman can save them all at once. It was also clearly shown in the scene where he is torn about going back to Metropolis or to go to look for Lois, aka the love of his life. He decided that the need of the many outweighed the need of the one (Star Trek). And yes, he saved a hooker and some police officers, but aren't they important too? After all, Superman cares about everybody. IMO, there is plenty of substance the way it was done. I'm satisfied in that aspect. I disagree. I think they went far enough in order to make the point. He totally embraced his responsibility when he said goodbye to Lois in that boat and went to save the world knowing that he was probably going to die. That was enough for me. And I didn't need any lines of dialogue to suggest that he was The world's savior. Lois understood it well, and that was why she was writing about it at the end (the title of her next article was after all: "Why the World Needs Superman") It was shown, not told. I prefer it that way. The FOS was located far into the heart of the North Pole, well hidden from everyone. And Lex was in jail. We don't know the body count in SR. We were never told about that. Realistically, a few or more than a few could have died. It just wasn't shown. However, throughout the movie is implied that Superman can't be everywhere at once. So yeah, I'm sure some died like in any other city/country in the world every day. For instance, at the beginning of the film, when Clark is watching the news, it is shown that he wasn't here during 9/11. He looks both sad and disappointed. And in the Reeve movies Superman can just turn back time, so no biggie.
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 11, 2011 18:49:47 GMT -5
Was there a reference to 9/11? I must have missed that.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 11, 2011 19:27:25 GMT -5
and in the Routh movie, he lifted a continent into space with Kryptonite embedded in him, so we're even
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Mar 11, 2011 19:36:17 GMT -5
I think SR suffers from SIV syndrome.
Good intentions gone awry.
Maybe the new Superman film will suffer from SIII syndrome: a bad idea executed well.
|
|
|
Post by SupermanUF on Mar 11, 2011 19:44:25 GMT -5
Gazer, CAM--What you guys are missing is, yes--Superman IS the world's savior--but he would NEVER declare himself as such. But, in SR, he basically does. He basically says to Lois "The world needs a Savior, and I'm it. And it's really lonely being it." Jonathan Kent would slap him so hard for thinking like that, he'd know he'd break his hand doing it, and do it anyway. That line has such a subtext of pride, self-importance, and vanity; distanced itself so much from Superman's humility and his humble upbringings on the farm. Jonathan's life lessons to Clark are more important than Jor-El's, but this movie made it seem like Jor-El was the only father he ever had (or at least the only one he ever listened to--definitely the only one he heard voiceovers of ) They portrayed him as a god struggling to live among humans, instead of a god struggling to live as a human. Big difference.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 11, 2011 19:52:52 GMT -5
Wow, great post UF. Excellent point about no Pa Kent voice over. Brilliant observation.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 12, 2011 2:21:10 GMT -5
Great argument- well spoken and very thought out- The funny thing is: at the end, I don't disagree with what you're saying with how Singer viewed Supes EXCEPT for: I liked it and thought it STILL was Superman. (At least the Superman I grew up with). But- it is a significantly different character choice from what we've seen in comics before. Either one feels that it's a plausible extension of his character (sadness of what he can't overcome in the world but keeps it to himself) or that it's a contradiction that isn't the character at all (which I get- an optimist who won't allow himself sadness). It's like seeing the same surface, and two different theories of what lies underneath. To me, a character that acknowledges the sadness but doesn't let it deter him is equally heroic to one that would never acknowledge or see sadness in the world. And.... to me, it was a more interesting choice, but you've voiced in the most clear manner WHY someone could totally feel like SR was a betrayal of the character. VERY interesting and plausible! I do see more clearly why one could feel how SR is 'not' Superman as they know it. I still love the parts of SR that I do, but I now get more why someone would not. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 12, 2011 2:33:11 GMT -5
Right. Of course, I get that. But I wanted to see Supes experience a bit of that limitation, as well.... without spinning the world around to turn back time. If Singer was going to make a Supes with some edge, and go with a tone that could include Supes being beaten up in a semi-realistic way and talk seriously about being a savior to all the human suffering - then it brought up some interesting questions that I had as an audience member- that got quickly sidestepped. (i.e. "If Superman wants to help suffering in the world, why doesn't he use his powers to feed the starving people of the world?" In the Paul Dini/Alex Ross book he TRIES to feed the starving in one section of the book- and the book shows the other complications that come up. It's a tricky situation. If you portray Supes as being 'in the real world, with real world problems'--- then he either solves humanity's problems - which is not real..... or he ignores them- which feels like a big elephant not talked about in the corner..... or the problems of that magnitude DON'T EXIST in the universe that we're introduced to in that version. Since it's #2- it's sort of the real world that Singer's version went for, a nod to that aspect (or an EXPRESSED version of why he does/doesn't solve it) would have felt nice.) That's what I meant about committing creatively to having some of the elements that were suggested, but not fully developed- again, one of them being the part of him specifically seeing himself as the savior of human misery. I love the film overall, but it doesn't mean that I can't also feel that there were parts that I wish were pushed a little further in one direction or the other.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Mar 12, 2011 23:25:41 GMT -5
Gazer, CAM-- What you guys are missing is, yes--Superman IS the world's savior--but he would NEVER declare himself as such. But, in SR, he basically does. He basically says to Lois "The world needs a Savior, and I'm it. And it's really lonely being it." Jonathan Kent would slap him so hard for thinking like that, he'd know he'd break his hand doing it, and do it anyway. That line has such a subtext of pride, self-importance, and vanity; distanced itself so much from Superman's humility and his humble upbringings on the farm. Jonathan's life lessons to Clark are more important than Jor-El's, but this movie made it seem like Jor-El was the only father he ever had (or at least the only one he ever listened to--definitely the only one he heard voiceovers of ) They portrayed him as a god struggling to live among humans, instead of a god struggling to live as a human. Big difference. With all due respect but I'm not missing anything, I just happen to have a different point of view than yours. I think that Superman is a much more complex character than many give him credit for. Personaly, I like my Supes with depth. Superman Returns gave me that. Like I said, I didn't have a problem with the line ("You wrote that the world doesn't need a savior, but every day I hear people crying for one"). And it seems to me he didn't exactly declare himself the world's SAVIOR. He was just trying to make a point to Lois. And he started by asking her is she could hear something ("Listen, What do you hear?"), and she responded that she couldn't hear anything up there. But he could hear everything. He was sharing his huge burden with her because she was that special to him. I don't think he'd do it with anyone else. He just tried to make her understand where he was coming from and his position and big responsibility he felt towards the world. He did Not sound vain or arrogant about it to me at all. On the contrary, he sounded very compassionate and caring, and that's why the whole scene worked for me. With all those amazing powers, What else could he do but to help and serve the world? He could easily conquer the world, but instead he serves it. This 'god' even apologized to Lois for leaving her. No, this Superman is not perfect, he has the powers of a god, but he feels like a human like the rest of us. He looks like us but he will never be one of us. He's the light to show the way. Huge burden, but he learns to accept it even if he could never have the woman he loves and the normal life. I like this Superman. It's very interesting to me. Somehow, he feels more real. But like I said, I have a different point of view than yours. It doesn't mean I'm wrong. Let's agree to disagree. I think he went far enough. Lois, her little boy and Richard almost drown. For a moment I actually thought they were going to die the first time I saw the film. I thought that was pretty dark. He beatdown was Very dark and edgy. Superman didn't end up with Lois either at the end, so not exactly a very happy ending. I don't think the film is flawless, I've complained about some aspects in the past. Despite that, I think the film is great and just as good or even better than STM. To each their own.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 13, 2011 15:42:47 GMT -5
I think I'm not articulating my thoughts clear enough- I'm not referring to the level of darkness, but the level of getting into the whole idea of Supes responding to the cries of the world.... and being responsible to SOLVE all those problems- with the suggestion of wars, disease, etc. etc. etc. Out of all the scenarios that the writers could have come up with to show him springing into action in that section of the movie, going from that GREAT moment (to me) of Supes floating above the entire world, listening to all the miseries on the PLANET to go right to the bank robbery felt like the flattest choice to me possible- as well as the car stuff w/Lex's assistant. It was OKAY.....but to me, there wasn't a whole lot of emotion to it (and I hate it when my imagination in a film switches to: "Um, why didn't they have Supes save a group of people from a fire, or something truly scary?*The 'touchstones' for those two scenes seemed to be to get to: #1: The 'bullet in the eye' moment, and #2: Superman's pose of lifting the car over his head a la' Action Comics #1. The moments were neat- but there were ten million other scenarios that could have ended up with that same moment, and at the same time, connect Supes a little more to the world in general, not just Metropolis/Austrailia location. (*the tv montage around the world is a nice touch, but overall STM felt like it had a bigger scope and worldwide feel to me than SR did) But- as you'd mentioned. There's no right or wrong in experiencing the movie differently. You're going to feel however way you will on certain parts, and I will on mine. Besides, I still love the movie & still am incredibly frustrated (as you are) that MOS didn't happen, and at the very least, Brandon didn't get a chance to come back as Supes while he's still in his prime. So- I think that means that- ultimately- we're on the same side, yah? (*Speaking of Supes saving the world from calamities/ making the film have more weight- even the 'Saving of Metropolis' I felt wasn't handled as well as it could. As an example, when Supes saves that sign from crashing, why couldn't they have had a PART of it crash down first (barely missing people or such) The movie as I said works, and in some parts spectacularly, but other parts it was only ok. But more parts spectacular than not in the final tally to me.)
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 13, 2011 18:01:03 GMT -5
Where in Superman Returns was:
The emotion of Pa Kent's death and funeral; The majesty of flying around Liberty; The sheer awesomeness of the helicopter rescue sequence
as seen in STM?
Where was the sparkling dialogue, jaw dropping effects, monologues that keeps 5 year old's attention spans (even though they don't know most of the words)?
I didn't feel any emotion whatsoever in SR (apart from disgust at OTT violence). By the time we were supposed to feel something (in the 3rd act), I was so bored off my ass.
No, its no where near close to STM IMO.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Mar 13, 2011 18:07:13 GMT -5
Exactly. For instance, I don't love the turning back time scene in STM, think it's very contrived but I can still enjoy it to some level. I have to say, though, it makes me cringe when I watch it in the company of others that aren't much into the character.
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Mar 13, 2011 19:29:48 GMT -5
Turning back the world may have been flawed and cringeworthy, but it wasn't as cringe-worthy as listening to my 20-something co-workers talking about how bored they were watching SR.
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 13, 2011 22:48:40 GMT -5
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 14, 2011 7:08:31 GMT -5
Turning back the world may have been flawed and cringeworthy, but it wasn't as cringe-worthy as listening to my 20-something co-workers talking about how bored they were watching SR. I have to agree with this. When my mother visited after I got my new TV a while back, I couldn't show her the film (she's a big fan of the Reeve films). I put on about 10 minutes worth of stuff and then put "Rocky Balboa" on instead. I'm too embarrassed to endorse an overall boring film that a lot of people will lose interest with.
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 14, 2011 7:10:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 14, 2011 12:08:27 GMT -5
STM was an epic origin story. SR was a 'sort-of' continuation. STM is extremely sentimental- but sincere. Donner wore his heart on his sleeve, sometimes embarrassingly so (Does anyone REALLY love Kidder's poem enough to play it alone in mixed company?)- but ballsy in not holding back one ounce of it. SR is NOT a sentimental film. But emotionally, it has just as much emotion right under the surface. For those who were bored, it's because the situation did not connect or resonate. The idea of being missing/ thought dead for a number of years/ coming back and realizing that people would be fine without you and move on- was something I connected to very deeply.... but that's because it resonated highly with me. But, it may not have been the emotional journey that some Superman audiences were ready/hoping for. I was fine with it. I thought it made Superman more relatable as a person by having the emotional vulnerability, if otherwise indestructible. Not emotional? The whole thing is about a lead character that is grieving, to a degree--- the same thing is/was true in the Star Trek "Generations" movie.... which had a similiar charge of feeling inert. I could see why people would feel that way in a film, if a lead character is silently suffering on a level. It's not necessarily a comfortable feeling for people to go with for a lead. But, back to comparing STM/SR on an emotional level: In STM, there was a variety of emotions, following Supes from being a child to growing up, to dealing with discoveries about being born from another civilization and having two heritages. In SR, Supes has/deals with very dark emotions, with a character that has to spend much of the film feeling like his alienation and loss was irreversible and coming to terms with consequences of actions and mistakes. (Everything stems from trying to find survivors of his home planet and the time it took to get there) . Puzo said that he wanted to treat Superman as a Greek tragedy. SR actually has that same feel- but less operatic and restrained, perhaps. More subtle. But- no emotion? You can say different things about SR, but it's packed with emotion. The love story is at the center of it- Singer once said that the story is about people who come back, and realize that they can't have things back they way they were.... and that type of love story may also not be the type of story people feel good about- but some can relate to, in real life. But, it's not for everyone. Also, a love story where one partner dies, and the solution is to rotate the world to bring them back to life- arguably, also hard for some people to take too seriously and relate to.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 14, 2011 12:22:35 GMT -5
yeah, but why on Earth use this theme for a Superman film??
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 14, 2011 19:28:16 GMT -5
My own theories why: (1) To help suggest that Superman was coming from a time that might have been a little more innocent (slightly suggested- pre-9/11) and bypassing why a Superman wasn't around during one of the key moments in US history...
(2) By having the character return to earth after being gone so long, that it help the audience take the journey with him and see the Daily Planet/Smallville/etc. with 'fresh eyes' so to speak along with the character- without having to do a reboot.
(3) Parallel idea to why/how such a 'pure' character would face some of the uglier aspects of the world/ survive now. *
((* Though this wasn't played with as much as I thought it could (and in retrospect) should have. It was dark enough to have Superman be melancholy, but not dark enough to have a villainous situation that "HAD TO BE STOPPED NOW THIS SECOND!".
Like the pg-13 "2012", we could/should have maybe SEEN cities being destroyed around the world (or even that area) by Luthor's crystal land masses, before it gets to (and threatens) Metropolis.
Or even one city, again "2012" or "Independence Day" style, which is violent enough to give chills, but not graphic/realistic enough to deserve an "R" rating.
It's sort of like how, in "Star Wars: Episode 4" (the original), the Death Star is SHOWN obliterating a planet.... before it gets to the rebel base, at the end.
Sure, it could work without showing it blowing up a planet first- but with far, far, less impact.))
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Mar 14, 2011 20:59:59 GMT -5
Great.
I'm going to wake up tomorrow morning and realize you guys married each other.
|
|
|
Post by Costa del Lex on Mar 14, 2011 21:23:13 GMT -5
So Kev... how did that screening go??
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 14, 2011 21:26:16 GMT -5
|
|