Superman Returns

[MAVERICK]

Shiny! WHERE did you get to read it?

Do you HAVE it?

[Deleted]

Misunderstanding, I was referring to the article stargazer posted. Though I'm sure Tarantino's is pretty damn interesting.

[crazy_asian_man]

Given the time constraints placed upon individual members of society by the rigors of existence within the modern world, it is understandable that many would choose to forgo the full assimilation of such a verbose document.

True, but shouting out about not reading something that someone took the time & effort out to post, seems unnecessary.

I agree with some of what you mentioned- for what the movie was trying to do, I think it could easily have blended in another subvillain (fine, a reboot of Nuclear Man, then, via the crystals) to provide more excitement- I'd already stated how lacking in energy Luthor's plot was---

If not a supervillain battle, if they were going to stay with Luthor's land mass plot, they should have shown more destruction like "2012"- I think in theory the idea is horrifying, but one needed to see the suffering caused by Luthor's land masses, even in a scene or two. (A city that Superman DIDN'T get to save with inhabitants as an example by Luthor--- sort of like in Star Wars: A New Hope, when the planet Alderaan is destroyed to show what COULD happen) to really FEEL it, and charge up the rest of the movie during its mid-point.

[ShogunLogan]

Sept 26, 2011 12:39:42 GMT -5 @shinymarble3000 said:

Given the time constraints placed upon individual members of society by the rigors of existence within the modern world, it is understandable that many would choose to forgo the full assimilation of such a verbose document.

Out of fairness, I did read it. That writeup uses far too many words to explain easy to understand concepts and themes. Take out the big words, take out the over-analysis of individual scenes, and it amounts to "Superman wants to learn about his heritage and be normal, but he can't be normal. He tries to be normal, at least for a while. Richard has the life he wants, but he has to be a hero instead. So he eventually chooses to let go of his romantic relationship with Lois and just be Superman." All ideas which are there on the surface for all to see. There's no need for a Harvard thesis.

Frankly, having those themes so close to the surface is part of the reason why I never connected with Superman Returns. The hero desiring a life of normalcy should be subtext in a Superman film, not the main story. It's a mainstream blockbuster, not The Last Temptation of Christ. I don't want a dumb Superman movie, necessarily (my hesitant anticipation of Snyderman notwithstanding), but a fun and exciting one would be nice. And Superman Returns is, for the most part, neither one of those things.

Excellent.

[crazy_asian_man]

It's a mainstream blockbuster, not The Last Temptation of Christ. I don't want a dumb Superman movie, necessarily (my hesitant anticipation of Snyderman notwithstanding), but a fun and exciting one would be nice. And Superman Returns is, for the most part, neither one of those things.

Superman Returns is essentially Singer's version of Donner's Superman filtered through the Last Temptation of Christ. The balls to do that (and in my opinion, do it WELL) made the movie fascinating - and I did connect to much of the film, in addition to admiring its cajones.

Love it or hate it, SR is a film that Singer was dying to make - not a formula film that was by the numbers. Having Superman take on a new role as a father wasn't for shock value- but actually had a payoff emotionally at the end. (although it's anybody's guess if this would have been undone in a sequel)

Singer didn't need the cash, and he definitely seems to still be in demand as a director.... (Can't necessarily say the same for Snyder).

If Snyder had just done "300" when he was 'hot' in Hollywood and was dying to do NOTHING ELSE but "Superman"--- then I think, even with misgivings, I'd be more fascinated, because it's a movie that he HAD to make (as Singer did, giving up Xmen)-- not one that seems like a calculated good career move/gamble.... which is what the current Superman film seems like right now.

[Deleted]

Superman as a character has always existed to inspire and thrill. He was born from the minds of young men who sought an escape from the Great Depression and the rise of Fascism. He's a pure symbol of all that's good and just. Dragging him into a soggy love triangle- one that at times puts him into the position of "potential usurper"- and making it the focus of the film is a fundamental betrayal of the character. The character has humanity, but he was never supposed to be THAT human. Cripes.

The Last Temptation of Christ worked, and was incredibly brave, because it took a character that was human- if you believe he once existed- and deconstructed the image of him that was built up by others in the centuries after his death. It returned the character to his roots, and tried to make his sacrifice meaningful and relevant in a way few portrayals have. Superman was never a real human being, though. He was CREATED to be a symbol of hope. It's not a false image of someone who really existed. Making him a flawed, lonely figure isn't a brave deconstruction. It goes against the character's entire reason for being- which is to be a larger-than-life hero.

Really, why bother adapting preexisting material if you don't understand what makes it work on a basic level? It reminds me of when Brad Silberling took Wings of Desire- a life-affirming film if there ever was one- and remade it into the dour, death-obsessed City of Angels. At some point, you have to realize the story you want to tell stands in direct opposition to the material you're working with.

[Metallo]

Sept 28, 2011 12:16:06 GMT -5 @shinymarble3000 said:

Really, why bother adapting preexisting material if you don't understand what makes it work on a basic level?

Indeed. Thats what happened to Snyder on Watchmen too. Hopefully the same thing doesn't happen with Man of Steel.

[Deleted]

Not understanding things like genre deconstruction, edgy humor, and satire in a graphic novel is pretty bad- but it takes a special level of obliviousness to miss the mark on a long-established and often-portrayed character like Superman.

[Metallo]

Sept 28, 2011 12:26:58 GMT -5 @shinymarble3000 said:

Not understanding things like genre deconstruction, edgy humor, and satire in a graphic novel is pretty bad- but it takes a special level of obliviousness to miss the mark on a long-established and often-portrayed character like Superman.

Snyder missed the point of simple shit in that movie. Like the very reason JOHN had to deliver his last line was because he's basically clairvoyant. Its the main cause of his whole problem in the story. Thats why he has a half smirk. Having Laurie say it misses the whole point. A child would understand that.

The whole movie is littered with stuff like that. Snyder was making a cool looking movie but didn't understand what it was about or what the characters were about

[ye5man]

The Last Temptation of Christ worked, and was incredibly brave, because it took a character that was human- if you believe he once existed- and deconstructed the image of him that was built up by others in the centuries after his death.

I am a big fan of this film. I remember the controversy when it came out (certain cinema chains in the UK refused to show it) caused by narrow minded retards. The more religious a person claims to be, the more close minded judgemental they are. I found the film very interesting and unique.

[ChrisM]

Sept 28, 2011 12:55:16 GMT -5 ye5man said:

The more religious a person claims to be, the more close minded judgemental they are.

Very true. My own mother fits that description to a T. How often my wife and I go to church, for example, should not be any of her concern. Religious nuts get so caught up in doctrine that they really lose sight of what's important.

As an aside - ye5man - do you really prefer them that big? Cute face over big chest for me any day.

[crazy_asian_man]

Superman as a character has always existed to inspire and thrill. He was born from the minds of young men who sought an escape from the Great Depression and the rise of Fascism. He's a pure symbol of all that's good and just. Dragging him into a soggy love triangle- one that at times puts him into the position of "potential usurper"- and making it the focus of the film is a fundamental betrayal of the character. The character has humanity, but he was never supposed to be THAT human. Cripes.

The Last Temptation of Christ worked, and was incredibly brave, because it took a character that was human- if you believe he once existed- and deconstructed the image of him that was built up by others in the centuries after his death. It returned the character to his roots, and tried to make his sacrifice meaningful and relevant in a way few portrayals have. Superman was never a real human being, though. He was CREATED to be a symbol of hope. It's not a false image of someone who really existed. Making him a flawed, lonely figure isn't a brave deconstruction. It goes against the character's entire reason for being- which is to be a larger-than-life hero.

Really, why bother adapting preexisting material if you don't understand what makes it work on a basic level? It reminds me of when Brad Silberling took Wings of Desire- a life-affirming film if there ever was one- and remade it into the dour, death-obsessed City of Angels. At some point, you have to realize the story you want to tell stands in direct opposition to the material you're working with.

I disagree, but I appreciate your point of view- and well articulated, you make a good argument.

My view of comics and Superman differs perhaps from viewing different generations of Superman comics via reprints and whatnot and seeing how the Superman comics have shifted and evolved with different takes and emphasises over the years. I've seen 'campy' Batman reprint comics and the Neal Adams' 'serious' Batman comics and have enjoyed them both---

I don't think you're wrong about Superman being a symbol of hope, and designed to be that way, but SR was daring in that I feel it took that same character with all its surroundings intact of how Superman is viewed & reversed it into HIS point of view who really existed and saw all the world's pain as everlasting, regardless of what he could/would accomplish. I still think they did keep Superman as a symbol of hope, but that it wasn't necessary to show himself feeling cheery and optimistic all the time AS that symbol.

To me, SR is to STM as what "Empire Strikes Back" is to "A New Hope". It's a darker but no less consistent (despite a few nagging continuity things that bug me) overall view of what was established in the first film.

Ultimately, I get that it's a difference of what we think we would see inside the character of Superman at his very core that I think people either accept as consistent or the thing that disconnects them from feeling like SR is a faithful Superman film.

I think we differ here: In SR I thought we saw Superman as someone with neverending burdens of the world- but he took them on and was sad that they existed..... Whereas perhaps in the original comics, Supes was pretty one-dimensional- had fun in revelling in how powerful he was and able to save the day (I'm talking the 1930's reprints)--- not really acknowledging in his fictional universe the really ugly stuff that's never seen but hinted at in the reality of SR.

I get the sense of betrayal one might feel if they felt that the character at the core was misinterpreted, but I felt that they nailed it just right.

Superman is a big enough character to exist in different interpretations, and I get that you (and probably others) feel that they went too far, but I thought that they kept the right shape and form and added a touch of genuine humanity that I thought was moving, not jarring.

Well, doesn't matter--- WB isn't staying with Singer's interpretation, so, hopefully Snyder's version pleases everybody.....

[MAVERICK]

Superfan fan gets a call from Superman himself:

In addition to the 350 some gifts and letters that have been sent to Superman fan Mike Meyer in response to news reports about the theft of his comic book collection, the Granite City man recently got a call that meant more than some.

He picked up the phone last week to hear the voice of "Superman Returns" star Brandon Routh, a 31-year-old actor and former model originally from Norwalk, Iowa. The two talked about — what else — all things Superman for nearly half an hour.

They touched on the making of the "Superman Returns" movie, the theft of Meyer's collection (which was subsequently returned when police made an arrest in the case), Meyer's memorabilia collection, scenes from the 2006 movie — which Meyer said he has seen 14 times in movie theaters and many more times on DVD — and past actors who have played the role.

At one point Meyer told Routh that he sounded like the late Bud Collyer, who was the voice of Superman and Clark Kent on radio, film and television in the 1940s and again in the 1960s.

The conversation closed with Meyer telling Routh that it was "an honor and a privilege" to have spoken with him.

Meyer, 48, lives off of Social Security checks for a mental disability and his pay from a part-time job at McDonald's. He lives alone with his dogs Krypto and Dyno and spends a lot of his time on his lifelong passion — his Superman collection.

During the last week in August, Meyer was tricked out of more than 1,800 of his favorite Superman comic books. After news reports about the theft, comic book collectors spread the word online via message boards and email lists and the letters and gifts began pouring in for Meyer.

[ye5man]

As an aside - ye5man - do you really prefer them that big?

I have no real preference to be honest

[Deleted]

Sept 29, 2011 3:01:19 GMT -5 MAVERICK said:

fucking nora, Routh's jacked these days.

[ger-el]

Routh is a big guy. I am always amazed how people thought he was "lanky.". I always thought he was perfect physically in the role. I think what people thought about his physique had much more to do with the suit.

[Deleted]

Sept 29, 2011 8:14:19 GMT -5 ger-el said:

Routh is a big guy. I am always amazed how people thought he was "lanky.". I always thought he was perfect physically in the role. I think what people thought about his physique had much more to do with the suit.

the suit was a problem.

The padding in his shoulders was far too big, it made his neck look skinny.

I dont even think he had the kind of size in SR that he has in that above photo.

He looked good all pumped up in the behind the scenes doc on the dvd. Then again I look huge pumped up before I deflate a couple of hours later

[crazy_asian_man]

Superfan fan gets a call from Superman himself:
In addition to the 350 some gifts and letters that have been sent to Superman fan Mike Meyer in response to news reports about the theft of his comic book collection, the Granite City man recently got a call that meant more than some.

He picked up the phone last week to hear the voice of "Superman Returns" star Brandon Routh, a 31-year-old actor and former model originally from Norwalk, Iowa. The two talked about — what else — all things Superman for nearly half an hour.

They touched on the making of the "Superman Returns" movie, the theft of Meyer's collection (which was subsequently returned when police made an arrest in the case), Meyer's memorabilia collection, scenes from the 2006 movie — which Meyer said he has seen 14 times in movie theaters and many more times on DVD — and past actors who have played the role.

At one point Meyer told Routh that he sounded like the late Bud Collyer, who was the voice of Superman and Clark Kent on radio, film and television in the 1940s and again in the 1960s.

The conversation closed with Meyer telling Routh that it was "an honor and a privilege" to have spoken with him.

Meyer, 48, lives off of Social Security checks for a mental disability and his pay from a part-time job at McDonald's. He lives alone with his dogs Krypto and Dyno and spends a lot of his time on his lifelong passion — his Superman collection.

During the last week in August, Meyer was tricked out of more than 1,800 of his favorite Superman comic books. After news reports about the theft, comic book collectors spread the word online via message boards and email lists and the letters and gifts began pouring in for Meyer.

What a classy guy. Considering how badly WB has treated him, another person might have just wanted to walk away from anything that would remind him of Superman & that whole biz, but awesome of Routh to give this guy a call in spite of all that.

[ye5man]

Considering how badly WB has treated him

WB can give me a MILLION dollars for a short term project any day of the week.

[Metallo]

Sept 29, 2011 17:52:07 GMT -5 ye5man said:

Considering how badly WB has treated him

WB can give me a MILLION dollars for a short term project any day of the week.

You'd be up for shaving Jon Peters balls as you read scripts for him one day?

[Valentine Smith]

Dude, for a million bucks? I'll throw in a shave for his ass, too.

[Metallo]

Sept 29, 2011 22:29:38 GMT -5 Valentine Smith said:

Dude, for a million bucks? I'll throw in a shave for his ass, too.

Now thats dedication. That also qualifies to you be an executive at Warner Bros.

Would you...join a certain club started by a certain wrestling promoter?

[stargazer01]

Sept 29, 2011 3:01:19 GMT -5 MAVERICK said:

Superfan fan gets a call from Superman himself:

In addition to the 350 some gifts and letters that have been sent to Superman fan Mike Meyer in response to news reports about the theft of his comic book collection, the Granite City man recently got a call that meant more than some.

He picked up the phone last week to hear the voice of "Superman Returns" star Brandon Routh, a 31-year-old actor and former model originally from Norwalk, Iowa. The two talked about — what else — all things Superman for nearly half an hour.

They touched on the making of the "Superman Returns" movie, the theft of Meyer's collection (which was subsequently returned when police made an arrest in the case), Meyer's memorabilia collection, scenes from the 2006 movie — which Meyer said he has seen 14 times in movie theaters and many more times on DVD — and past actors who have played the role.

At one point Meyer told Routh that he sounded like the late Bud Collyer, who was the voice of Superman and Clark Kent on radio, film and television in the 1940s and again in the 1960s.

The conversation closed with Meyer telling Routh that it was "an honor and a privilege" to have spoken with him.

Meyer, 48, lives off of Social Security checks for a mental disability and his pay from a part-time job at McDonald's. He lives alone with his dogs Krypto and Dyno and spends a lot of his time on his lifelong passion — his Superman collection.

During the last week in August, Meyer was tricked out of more than 1,800 of his favorite Superman comic books. After news reports about the theft, comic book collectors spread the word online via message boards and email lists and the letters and gifts began pouring in for Meyer.

My hero!

Things like this only make me enjoy SR even more. The man is actually an amazing human being like Superman. Wonderful pics too... thanks! He was superb in those scenes on the plane. Just breathtaking.

[MAVERICK]

He most certainly is ole pal, he most certainly is.

[ye5man]

Sept 29, 2011 18:30:35 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Sept 29, 2011 17:52:07 GMT -5 ye5man said:

WB can give me a MILLION dollars for a short term project any day of the week.

You'd be up for shaving Jon Peters balls as you read scripts for him one day?

I'd stop short at eating his shit...