|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Apr 7, 2012 12:36:46 GMT -5
I have to admit, I use hyperbole about a million times a day. well i use it a million bajillion times. and i'm nnneeeeeeeeeeevver sarcastic. |
|
|
|
Post by SupermanUF on Apr 7, 2012 13:42:49 GMT -5
Superman I - "I never lie."
Superman II - "Sorry I've been away so long. I won't let you down again."
Superman Returns-- "Actually, I WILL let you down again, and I'm going to be away for even longer! PEACE OUT EARTH!"
__________________________
IMMEDIATELY following the events of SII he breaks his promises and just up and leaves Earth for 5 years???
This is the biggest travesty of SR, period. How can you claim to make a film that is a "love letter" to the Donner Superman when you don't even understand the Donner Superman at the most simple, base level.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 7, 2012 13:53:30 GMT -5
Movie Superman must not have the best foresight...or commitment issues?
In Supergirl he takes off to another galaxy and some witch takes over.
Then in Superman IV it takes our nukes in a d*ck move that REALLY must have chapped Charlton Heston's ass. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 7, 2012 16:40:07 GMT -5
Disagree completely... but that's what forums are for. Free speech and debate, the 'American Way'.  Seriously, in reading some of the scripts that have come out in between SIV and SR that were touted, I think SR came the closest in spirit to who Supes was. If you read the scene with Clark with a PSYCHIATRIST in one of the Supes scripts, or the Kevin Smith script where Clark has Clerks lingo like calling Jimmy a 'slacker', I think you might have a change of heart on just who really was far away from the mythos. The abandonment of earth temporarily to find out where he came from solves MANY creative problems...and takes the character to new ground without him feeling like he needs a shrink (totally wrong imo). I can get where someone might feel like it's a true compromise of who he is, but I think there's probably enough people on both sides of the SR fence to agree/disagree that what he does in SR is/isn't a violation of the character. Funny how this movie will be one that no one will EVER agree upon..  |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Apr 7, 2012 17:22:43 GMT -5
Its easy to say that cos SR was the only one produced. However, as SR was a giant wan...love letter to STM, its not surprising many feel this way. There is nothing wrong with SR's heart or sentimentality in itself.
Its odd they took this dynamic glorious character and turned him into a self pitying loser* who became an unlikeable woman's bitch.
loser* He failed to get the bad guy, failed to get the girl, failed his own son, failed his own history with Kryptonite, failed to raise a smile pretty much
One "YES" moment might have changed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Apr 7, 2012 17:40:11 GMT -5
TV critic Todd VanDerWerff (AV Club, Los Angeles Times) also loves the movie and thinks is one of the best superhero films ever made. He said the following last week in this review of a show (The Killing): "The most dangerous thing about criticism in the Internet age is groupthink. Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with critical consensus, but the age of comments sections and arts blogs and Twitter has invented a world where if your opinion bucks the consensus, it’s a “wrong” opinion, even if you think Superman Returns is one of the best superhero movies ever made (as I do). This gets even worse on television, where shows that have already been written off are written off with extreme prejudice."
"I'm supposed to be checking out of a hotel, so I have to keep it brief. The filmmaking, I think, is exquisite. Bryan Singer comes up with some amazing images. I also love that he doesn't get trapped by the usual superhero movie screenplay structure and ends up making a movie about what it would be like to have a god living among men. It's a religious movie, first and foremost, and then a superhero movie. I get that a lot of people don't like that, but I find it a fascinating meditation on faith.
That said, it cost $200 million, and very few fascinating meditations on faith have ever made that much money. I'm comfortable in the minority on this one."www.avclub.com/articles/reflectionsmy-lucky-day%2C71667/I agree with him. No matter how negative some people can be about the movie... it doesn't change the way I feel about it. Like Todd said, it's a fascinating film. It's not perfect (No superhero film is) but it gets so many things sooo right. It just gets better and better the more I see it. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,820 
|
Post by atp on Apr 7, 2012 17:54:17 GMT -5
He failed to get the bad guy, failed to get the girl, failed his own son, failed his own history with Kryptonite, failed to raise a smile pretty much He also failed to be affected by the kryptonite continent. |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Apr 7, 2012 18:13:08 GMT -5
and you FAIL to get IT.
|
|
Knight
New Member
@Knighty80
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by Knight on Apr 7, 2012 19:37:23 GMT -5
Things I like: The costume, the size of the S and the no S on the cape. (That said I would rather an S on the cape than all over the boots and suit). Recreating Action Comics #1, the best part of anything Superman film or TV ever! This is closely followed by catching the Daily Planet globe, that's cool! In space looking down upon the earth and then flying down. The plane rescue, I love how he lowers his head and dives through that wing. Excellent. Spacey as Lex, I thought his stuff in the deleted scenes were better than what was in the film. His scene with Bosworth, ''this is more of a reunion, heck! I'm a fan.'' etc. The way he looks at the kid when he realizes that he maybe Supes' son. Superman's use of X Ray vision, that was pretty good. Superman going back to New Krypton even though he knew it might kill him, he had to try. FOS, Jor-El. I wanted more there with Superman. ''See anything familiar?'' ''I see an old man's sick joke.'' -I love Routh's delivery of this. Richard White, normally the new love interests are total dicks. But he was a Superman without powers, looking out for the missus and the kid, also he was really cool with Clark too. The film is peppered with good moments, when he gets shot in the eye, his reaction is cool. I like the score as I'm sure others here do too. Stuff am not fused on: There was no good reveals/change scenarios, the bad guys were two dimensional and brought nothing to the show except breathing heavy and looking angry. Is that the best they could do? Yea, the script is poor, the opening is really bad. If I recall correctly, in the making of didn't Singer laugh at Neil's line? The lighting or lack of, that's bloody awful. I would have loved the scene with Richard and Lois if it wasn't spoiled by that bloody music from Big!  Likewise on the boat. The poor flying scenes for when it was released they could have done so much more with it. They were really bad, CGI should be -used as a very last-rock bottom-resort. Have him on wires and CGI them out. The bank heist is rubbish too the one in Superman III was better. Not enough Superman or Clark Kent which is a major problem for me. I just feel watching the film is a waist of time as we didn't get a sequel. At least the running time would have been worth it if we had a follow up. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 7, 2012 21:24:00 GMT -5
He failed to get the bad guy, failed to get the girl, failed his own son, failed his own history with Kryptonite, failed to raise a smile pretty much He also failed to be affected by the kryptonite continent. You fail to hit that dead horse just right. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 7, 2012 22:02:42 GMT -5
Imo, Singer was following STM/SII's allegory of Superman and Jorel as Christ/God to another level.... It IS 'passion of the christ' meets 'Superman'.... which is ballsy for doing so in a summer blockbuster film, and I loved enough of it. (Though, yeah, I can understand why setting the story with Superman as purely a passivist wasn't necessarily the best way to go. I've said many times myself he coulda/shoulda had a fight scene with a supervillain, even though Christ never punched anyone out in any of the film adaptations from the New Testament, as far as I know...) Speaking of which... Jesus in Passion of the Christ also fails to get the bad guy, fails to get the girl, fails to raise a smile....guess that makes him a loser, too? |
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Apr 7, 2012 22:07:22 GMT -5
At the end of the day, Superman is a character created by two Jewish guys who SOLVES MOST PROBLEMS BY HITTING THEM. Enough with the Superman/Jesus metaphor. It's tired, it's inappropriate, and it made for a fairly dull film this time around. It was elegant and subtle in STM. In SR it was merely tiresome.
Superman isn't Jesus. Superman is SUPERMAN and that should be enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by booshman on Apr 7, 2012 22:37:15 GMT -5
Imo, Singer was following STM/SII's allegory of Superman and Jorel as Christ/God to another level.... It IS 'passion of the christ' meets 'Superman'.... which is ballsy for doing so in a summer blockbuster film, and I loved enough of it. It's funny you say that. I remember talking to an acquaintance of mine, not a Superman fan by any means, but interested enough to go to see Superman Returns in the cinema. I asked him what he thought, and he told me he didn't like it. When I asked him why, the first reason he gave was that there was too much religious bullshit for his tastes, and if he wanted to watch a film about Jesus, he would have watched Passion of the Christ. |
|
|
|
Post by magicjim on Apr 8, 2012 9:09:24 GMT -5
There was no good reveals/change scenarios... I thought the elevator change was great! |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 8, 2012 10:38:48 GMT -5
Well, I don't know if I agree about subtle... (particularly with Jor-el's speeches in STM/SII)... but with so many Michael Bays and Brett Ratner clones in Hollywood that have no ambition to make something other than pleasing the audience and hackwork, one can't say (even though they do) that Singer didn't try to make something really personal to him in SR.... which is why I think the film gets such a wide divide among Superman fans. I do think strongly, based on X1 and X2... #1: We really would have seen Superman whoop Kryptonian arse in SR 2--- and amaze everyone. #2: That he could have still had it both ways (just like STM/SII) in having Superman be Jesus and beat up a superpowered villain in SR (Could he have retained the same storyline but integrate Brainiac in SR to represent the brawny villain to add to Lex's brainy villain?). And, in re-reading ye5man's post and thinking on it-- Ye5man, I may find myself agreeing with the last part- in spirit. The lacking to me of SR (although overall I've always said I've loved enough parts of it spectacularly to make up for it, much like STM before the last act) is that there isn't necessarily a feeling of triumph over defeating Luthor- because he's given a bit of a clown treatment, like in STM. If not him, his plan seems a little too ridiculous to have real weight, or followers. Because of the fx and all, it works- but not nearly as much as, say, the Joker in TDK, where you might have felt: he needs to be STOPPED...and RIGHT NOW!!! If he had to fight off a truly primal or malicious villain (What if Luthor summoned up or created Doomsday via the crystals?) while or after lifting the Kryptonite mass, then there might be that 'wow!' moment of having relief when Superman destroys him.... (Though, yeah, not very Jesus-like) ... and not sacrifice the main story as is. On the flip side, when they were going for the messiah/self-sacrificing route--- I actually don't think they went as far as they could - when he's listening to all the suffering and cries of the world, then goes and saves a BANK of all things (yes, he saves the security guards, but...) - I think I was far more moved when Peter Parker powerless went into a burning building to save a kid in Spiderman II. Supes could still have been sad about the loss about the homeworld and losing Lois and all, but I agree that if going in this direction, in doing the saving around the world sequence, he could have had a bit about the joy of saving someone else (I'm thinking of the sequence where recently Superman in the comics saves a kid from suicide) and remember that as big as his problems are, there's someone out there with worse problems... if they wanted to be as heavy as they were.... and not just be morose about his love life. The story works great for me, but I agree it could have taken a step back and shown Supes to have a good reason to have a bigger love for the world- (and yes, there is that moment where he choses between saving Lois and Metropolis, but there could have been a bit more where he gets over her, too). But then again, it's a love story/passion of the christ story--- so making the importance of that relationship the end of the world is part of the parcel for the formula...... but I've always agreed with the screenwriter (and Superman fans) that he coulda/shoulda had a real Superman battle & might have added quite a few more box office dollars imo. But--- I have a feeling we'll get the reverse in MOS. All action and no heart. Maybe someone will blend MOS and SR in a fan cut at the end to make everyone happy. |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Apr 8, 2012 10:57:32 GMT -5
He DID raise more than one smile in the film (and in his own style)! Enjoy.     He also smiled to Kitty after he rescued her. Oh and to Jimmy when he first saw him. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 8, 2012 11:26:02 GMT -5
At the end of the day, Superman is a character created by two Jewish guys who SOLVES MOST PROBLEMS BY HITTING THEM. Enough with the Superman/Jesus metaphor. It's tired, it's inappropriate, and it made for a fairly dull film this time around. It was elegant and subtle in STM. In SR it was merely tiresome. Superman isn't Jesus. Superman is SUPERMAN and that should be enough. Do not watch Batman Begins and TDK! Symbolism there too! ;D Superman's not Jesus but he's always owed some of his inspiration to some kind of mythological or biblical stories. Thats really all comics are to us: modern myths. If Superman isn't a Jesus allegory you could argue its in part a Moses allegory. Or Hercules. Donner (raised Jewish I believe) embellished the Judeo-Christian bits but he wasn't the first guy to do it. Before Superman's adoptive mother became Martha Kent wasn't her name Mary for a while? "L" became "El" which means "God" or "of God." After that we can probably give some credit to John Carter and Doc Savage for being influences on Superman. All these characters have their roots in something that came before. There was no good reveals/change scenarios... I thought the elevator change was great! Ditto. That was certainly unique and pretty fun. I don't think I've seen Supes do the change in quite that exact way before. Sure its not SPINNING into your suit  or anything that fancy but whatever |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Apr 8, 2012 11:39:42 GMT -5
Brandon never made me smile with the character the way Reeve and Reeves did. CK goofily smiling in an elevator is pointless
Lame and incomparible.
And incorrect. He defeated Satan, had a relationship with Mary Magdalene, saved humanity and laughed/joked with his Mother in flashbacks
But he's a totally different character. Like Val says, enough of the Jesus shit. Singer clearly went out his way to parallel Superman to Jesus which interfered with the "story"
Subtle references are fine but practically rehashing "Passion" and bringing Jesus story to the forefront and then later having Routh almost dying in a crucifixion pose is like having a bible basher in your face. Its about as subtle as a heart attack
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 8, 2012 12:15:45 GMT -5
So we trade the Jesus sh*t for some lameass uninspired 300/Matrix/ Chronicles of Riddick sh*t. Great.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Apr 8, 2012 15:36:42 GMT -5
Whoah, is that you Johnnyboy?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 8, 2012 16:01:28 GMT -5
No, "friend" I ain't Johnny Boy. If that comment makes you think I am a lot of us must be Johnny Boy.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Apr 8, 2012 16:24:42 GMT -5
I see only a small minority slam an unreleased movie on this board.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 8, 2012 17:24:54 GMT -5
I have a feeling that you only like 'safe' movies... not that there's anything wrong with that. I liked and admired what Singer did (for the most part), and others didn't. With MOS, I fear that the ambition might not be there. With Watchmen, I give Snyder credit for trying something that he was passionate about- but also blame for getting the material 'wrong' in my eyes. You probably feel the same way about Singer's treatment of SR--- would that be fair to say? No, other comments are lame and incomparible. Mine are always brilliant and mind-blowing, you have mine mistaken for someone else's. And...? |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Apr 8, 2012 19:20:59 GMT -5
You'd be wrong on that. I prefer ballsy movies. Infact I enjoy all types of movies. Not sure how you get to that conclusion from my complaint Singer shoved the religious B.S. in our faces
A pity he didn't give the same attention to the script, (some of) the acting, photography, editing and lack of action
But I guess I "don't get it".
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 8, 2012 19:49:45 GMT -5
I see only a small minority slam an unreleased movie on this board. Thats cause a small minority give enough of a f*** about it to muster up any interest either way for a movie thats over a year away. I don't exactly see people jumping for joy in anticipation either. Not as bad as the minority who went to see Snyders last piece of sh** but hey. |
|
or anything that fancy but whatever