# The Superman Returns spoiler thread.



## KenM (Jun 26, 2006)

I figured with the movie opening tomorrow night we can post thoughts here.


----------



## KaosDevice (Jun 26, 2006)

I thought the two biggest suprises and spoilers for the movie were that Superman is Kaiser Soze and that he was actually dead through out the whole movie and only the little kid could see him.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 26, 2006)

Just wanted to point out that since the movie only premieres here in Bikiniland on July 14th, I HATES YOU ALL!!!!!!


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 27, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Just wanted to point out that since the movie only premieres here in Bikiniland on July 14th, I HATES YOU ALL!!!!!!




mmmm Bikiniland - I think I Hates You Seymore -


----------



## Aaron L (Jun 27, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I HATES YOU ALL!!!!!!





So youre going to become a vile bikini-clad supervillain Superman has to fight?

Uh oh.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 27, 2006)

I have a spoiler question.

I don't know if you guys have seen the most recent trailer that airs on TV, but in there, we can briefly see a sort of HUGE greenish asteroid floating in a room. 

A gather this is a piece of kryptonite. Well is it? If so, what a freakin' HUGE piece of kryptonite!!!


----------



## trancejeremy (Jun 27, 2006)

2 1/2 hours? I hope it doesn't have a 30 minute opening credit sequence like the 80s one did...


----------



## Firebeetle (Jun 27, 2006)

*I've seen it*

Ask and you shall receive. spoilers away!


----------



## Firebeetle (Jun 27, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I have a spoiler question.
> 
> I don't know if you guys have seen the most recent trailer that airs on TV, but in there, we can briefly see a sort of HUGE greenish asteroid floating in a room.
> 
> A gather this is a piece of kryptonite. Well is it? If so, what a freakin' HUGE piece of kryptonite!!!




Lex uses a Kryptonion crystal to grow land, which it "clones" from its immediate environment. He steals and uses a kryptonite meteorite to form a shell for the crystal and fires it into the sea to make a kryptonite island. Is that the answer you are looking for?


----------



## KenM (Jun 27, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> 2 1/2 hours? I hope it doesn't have a 30 minute opening credit sequence like the 80s one did...





  I read that they cut like 20 minutes of of that to get it to 2.5 hours.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 28, 2006)

> Lex uses a Kryptonion crystal to grow land, which it "clones" from its immediate environment. He steals and uses a kryptonite meteorite to form a shell for the crystal and fires it into the sea to make a kryptonite island. Is that the answer you are looking for?



Yes. I think that's it. Thanks!


----------



## KenM (Jun 28, 2006)

I just got back from seeing it. I thought it was just OK, nothing great. I was disapointed that the accually made the kid Superman's Son, way too typical. I thought the ending needed to be tightened up, that dragged on too long after the big action climax. I also did not like how they turned Superman into a stalker.


----------



## stevelabny (Jun 28, 2006)

GAH.

this was bad.

DC strikes out again at the box office, maybe one year theyll get one right.

Slow, plodding and sometimes tedious...the spider-man trailer had more action than this entire movie. 2:30 but so much of that time was devoted to the tertiary characters that it was ridiculous. I guess we know that Singer wooed Marsters by offering him a hero scene he didnt get in X-Men, unfortunately it was just a waste of film.

The near-death of Superman was executed poorly. First, he just gets beaten and stabbed by Luthor and tons of Kryptonite. Whoopee.  How about a knock-down drag out fight for the ages if Superman is gonna die... say what you want about the Death of Superman storyline in the comics, but at least that created the epic feel necessary for bringing down the most powerful superhero.

Then, to not follow the near-death experience with a good butt-kicking made no sense, and really makes the end of the movie a depressing drag...when that's NOT what they were going for (or else youd just leave it with an "is he dead" cliffhanger)

and my problem with the kid isnt even making the kid his son, as it would be strongly hinted anyway, its the weak way it was revealed and accepted and dealt with. much better to just leave it a question and deal with it next movie. 

the people i went with questioned some of the sfx, but i thought the movie looked pretty enough, although shaky cam should always be removed, the airplane and car sequences were excruciating.  

Slightly better than the garbagey Batman movie.... I give this dreck a 4 out of 10.

(Cuz I think I gave Batman a 3. I might have given it a 4 though, but I've since watched it a second time and it still sucked so call it a 3.)


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 28, 2006)

Just got back from seeing it. An amazing, awesome movie all the way around. It's both a fantastic continuation of the first two films, and it's own movie all at the same time. I really can't say too many good things about it.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 28, 2006)

I watched it, and it was okay, but the more I think about it the less I like it. Seriously, give the movie about an hour to sink in, and look back at the point of it all. It's pretty meager.

Kevin Spacey was a joy to watch, though a moron.

Smallville was a better interpretation of Superman than this.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 28, 2006)

Wow. While I can see how aspects of it wouldn't appeal to everyone, I'm surprised by the amount of negativity. I think it's one of the top five comic book movies I've ever seen.

I'm not _thrilled_ about the "super son" angle, but I'm interested in seeing how they follow it up in sequels. And I thought the casting and acting were absolutely spot-on.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jun 28, 2006)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> Slightly better than the garbagey Batman movie.... I give this dreck a 4 out of 10.
> 
> (Cuz I think I gave Batman a 3. I might have given it a 4 though, but I've since watched it a second time and it still sucked so call it a 3.)



Hrm.  I'm glad you put this part in.  Since I thought _Batman Begins_ was absolutely fantastic, it lets me know that you and I don't see movies in the same light.  Not even close.

Still...there's enough negativity in the thread to make me trepidatious.  Will have to see when I get a chance to watch it for myself.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jun 28, 2006)

Well, here we go...
Well, I went to a 10 o'clock Tuesday night screening.
So, here's my thoughts. There's alot to say, so sorry if I ramble. (I'll try not to give too much away, but be warned there are some spoilers herein!!)

Overall, I really, really liked it. One of the better comic adaptions I've seen in quite a long time.   I went it with high expectations, and they were defintiely met, if not exceeded.

Was it perfect?
No, far from it.  (Though I'm surprised to see such negativity towards it!)

The bad?
Kevin Spacey. I like him as an actor, he just seemed to be a scenery chewer in this movie. He lacked the sinisterness and nuances that Michael Rosenbaum and Gene Hackman brought to the part.

Also, they didn't have any truly direct conflict between Superman and Lex, certainly no link worthy of Smallville or the comics.
And Lex's "evil plan"? To become a land baron? OOOH, scary. Except not.

And why would you not fire that Kyptonian crytal from a fair distance away, instead of being right in the epicenter of where the blast is tot take place? 
The anvillicious "Jesus" parallels. You don't have to look very hard to find them: they're in quite a few of the scenes; even my friends pre-teen son noticed the symbology. They were REALLY trying to make Superman a messianic hero.



> the airplane and car sequences were excruciating




I agree about the airplane sceen; it was really hard to discern exactly what was goign on at given moment due to the "shaky-cam".

The good?
Brandon Routh. 
It can't be said enough.



> I'm quickly developing a crush on Brandon Routh.




Me, too.    
But a well-deserved one, if I do say so myself. Brandon seems very comfortable in this role, at least to my eyes. He seems to inhabit both the Clark and Superman roles with equal vigor and ease. I hope this movie kick-starts his career into high-gear, and I look forward to seeing alot more of Brandon in the future. 

The movie really hinges on him, and the relationship between Lois and Clark, and they really carried that aspect off well. AND, they don't take the easy way out: it would've been really easy to kill Richard off in this film, but they left that thread hanging, which made for a truly bittersweet ending.

Eva Marie Saint. It's unfortunate she wasn't in this more, but fortunately a little Eva goes a long way! I would have liked to have seen a few more scenes between the two of them. 

Frank Langella: Any move that gives Frank Lagella work is OK by me! 

The special effects: Normally, I'm not one to notice things like this, but I really noticed how seamless the effects (in particular the flying sequences) seemed to me. 

And? The film was dedicated to Christopher and Dana Reeves. This earned a standing round of applause from the crowd where I saw it.



> Smallville was a better interpretation of Superman than this.




Don't you mean "Lanaville"?  'Cause that's what it's felels like to me.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 28, 2006)

ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> Don't you mean "Lanaville"?  'Cause that's what it's felels like to me.



What do you expect from the superman soap opera?


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 28, 2006)

So this movie encourages:

1. Dead-beat dads.
2. Being a creepy stalker.
3. Skipping out on your civic duties (not appearing in court, not paying your medical bills, and I'm pretty sure Clark didn't pay any taxes the year he up and vanished)

The movie hits the right emotional notes, and if you don't think about it, it's actually kind of enjoyable. But if you lend a few minutes of thought to it, you'll see that Superman as a character has a simplistic view of a world that is amazingly complex. I feel that the movie is weaker because of its simplicity. With the 70s and 80s version of Superman, we had the faith of a child that a man could do wonders and be uncorruptible and undefeatable. But nearly thirty years later, as much as we want someone with those traits, we need to see the person at least own up to the temptations and challenges of being human.

Sometimes Superman can be an interesting character -- this usually occurs when a comic writer decides to confront the moral issues being immensely more powerful than everyone else presents. In this movie, however, he's just not interesting. He has no personal conflict, except that he's hung up on his ex-girlfriend. Y'know, Supes, while you're using your X-Ray vision to violate their personal privacy, I'm sure hundreds of people around the world are dying.

I don't want a Superman movie to be bleak, but I don't want it to be blind either. I honestly had expected a bit more from Bryan Singer.

And I have enough time to go into how badly written the dialogue was, or how poorly-realized Lex Luthor was, how stupid _he_ was to keep his ditz around, and all in all how pathetic the conflict was. Honestly, the only character I liked in the movie was someone not even in the Superman mythos -- Richard whatshisname, who was Lois's boyfriend. Everyone else was lame.

Sigh. I need to go. I give the movie 5 out of 10.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jun 28, 2006)

> Sometimes Superman can be an interesting character -- this usually occurs when a comic writer decides to confront the moral issues being immensely more powerful than everyone else presents. In this movie, however, he's just not interesting. He has no personal conflict, except that he's hung up on his ex-girlfriend.




Superman has, since his inception, been a figure of hope and optimism.  Unlike Batman, he (for the most part) doesn't HAVE to wrestle with moral ambiguity or being persecuted by the general populace, so that affords a different tone to the Superman films than the Batman or X-Men films.

More, I think Superman films should be able to stand the test of time, and have an almost "timeless" quality to them, as most of the themes explored are universal.  They got "topical" with the last big-screen Superman film (Remember Nuclear Man?), and people tuned out in droves.

I think this film was just bittersweet enough, without being bleak.  (Honestly, I could have done without "Superbaby", though.)



> Y'know, Supes, while you're using your X-Ray vision to violate their personal privacy, I'm sure hundreds of people around the world are dying.




It's been established that there's no possible way that Superman can save everyone in Metropolis, let alone the state, or the country, or the world.  The point is that he does what he can personally, and more importantly, he stands as a sybol to others to better themselves.  (They actually make reference in the film to him being able to "inpsire others to their true potential.")



> I don't want a Superman movie to be bleak, but I don't want it to be blind either. I honestly had expected a bit more from Bryan Singer.




I didn't want to go in to this and see a "Grim'n'gritty" Superman movie: I can watch "The Punisher" for that.  I think the film did a decent job in portraying both sides of the story of whether "The World Needs Superman" or the "World Doesn't Need Superman".  (I thought the scene where Lois and Calrk are in the air, talking about how she doesn't hear anything calling out for a savior, where that's all he seems to hear.)



> This movie encourages:
> 1. Dead-beat dads.
> 2. Being a creepy stalker.
> 3. Skipping out on your civic duties (not appearing in court, not paying your medical bills, and I'm pretty sure Clark didn't pay any taxes the year he up and vanished)




If you're being serious, I think you took the wrong things away from this film.  

I enjoy realism in film as much as the next person, but honestly, I don't care if Superman paid his taxes, especially where there's only two hours or so to explore other prominent themes in the Superman mythos.  (And they established that Lex was freed due to Superman's non-show in court, so it's established that there ARE ramification to Supermans actions.)


----------



## Starman (Jun 29, 2006)

I loved the movie. There was very little I didn't like. 

I didn't mind the kid because I thought it was handled well. I had read next to nothing about the movie and had only seen part of one trailer, so it was a complete surprise to me. I kept expecting the kid to do the typical kid things-being annoying, smarter than the adults, using his super-powers to save Mom and Richard in the boat, yadda, yadda. I was impressed that there wasn't any of that. I think that as long as the kid is handled in a similar fashion in sequels that his presence will only add to the movie. 

While it would have been cool to see a post-death confrontation with Lex, it didn't really _feel _missing to me. I thought the end worked fine. 

I thought the performances were incredible. Routh, especially, nailed his dual roles. He was Superman/Clark Kent. Kevin Spacey was, as usual, stellar.

I was glad to see that Richard Perry was just a normal guy and not the typical jackass 'other guy' that women end up with in movie romantic triangles. I get sick of seeing the girl with a prick while you wonder why she doesn't pick the good guy. Richard was a normal, decent guy. 

Was I the only one that wanted to jump up and start cheering as soon as John Williams' Superman Theme started playing?  

I came out of the movie grinning and wanting to turn around and see it again.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Jun 29, 2006)

I'll give it a 5 out of 10.

Fairly underwhelming. Not a bad movie,but nothing fantastic....or even semi-fantastic. 


Pros:
-Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth are good. I like their performance.
-Special Effects are good.
-Love the homage to the beginning sequence of the old Superman movie.

Cons:
-bland and unoriginal/uncreative third act climax.
-bad cutting -- my goodness, there are long strings of cuts NON-action sequences where the camera wouldn't hold on anything for more than 3 seconds before cutting to a different angle (minor gripe, but after a while it started to annoy me)
-side story arcs, like the son for instance, don't have a satisfying conclusion.
-many dramatic moments lost impact due to Singer's directing.

Another I didn't like was having to endure yet....ANOTHER movie where Superman has to be paired up against Lex. But I thought to myself, well....they are relaunching the character for a new generation, so ....yeah, you gotta do Lex for the first one again. Even though some of fanboys have seen it ad-naseum. But...not all of the audience are fanboys...so.....ok, fine....let it be Lex again. But...if its gonna be Lex again, please oh please let  his scheme of how he fights Superman be more than just simplyl getting a hold of Kryptonite....please.....

Nope....disappointed again. Another thing that feels repetative is the whole villian girl-pal betraying you at the 11th hour thing again. Luthor's secretary Mercy in the cartoon makes a better female companion than any of the ones in the movies. They all seem to loose their nerve and betray Lex. First time was fine....but again? 

I enjoyed the Superman action set pieces, but man....a movie has to more than about sfx shots. This movie was very mediocre. Too bad, the cast did a good job acting....too bad the writers and the director didn't rise to the occasion too.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Wow. While I can see how aspects of it wouldn't appeal to everyone, I'm surprised by the amount of negativity. I think it's one of the top five comic book movies I've ever seen.
> 
> I'm not _thrilled_ about the "super son" angle, but I'm interested in seeing how they follow it up in sequels. And I thought the casting and acting were absolutely spot-on.



 Man, I need to get a "What Mouseferatu said" flag now, considering how often I seem to be saying that.

I actually liked the fact that the movie didn't have a big knock-down drag-out brawl to end it. And I think the film nailed a lot of the things that make Superman as a character very different from Batman, Spiderman, etc. Could it have been better? Sure. Was it well done? IMNSHO, yes.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Jun 29, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I actually liked the fact that the movie didn't have a big knock-down drag-out brawl to end it.




I don't mind the end not being a big action slugfest, but I did want to be more cleverly written.




			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Wow. While I can see how aspects of it wouldn't appeal to everyone, I'm surprised by the amount of negativity. I think it's one of the top five comic book movies I've ever seen.




Well, weird things happen. Sometimes I see a movie and think, "I bet the people on the boards will really like this movie/tv show." Then I come here and people are bashing on it. Or vice versa.....I think you guys will hate it with me, and instead a majority love it. Just how it goes I guess. Different buttons are pushed with different people.

To me, top 5 comic book movies I've every seen are:

-Spiderman
-Spiderman 2
-Superman the Movie
-The Rocketeer
-Blade

Do you count "Road to Perdition" , "Ghostworld", and "From Hell"? How about non-comic book movies ,but yet are super-hero movies? If so, "The Incredibles" would go up there for me too. 



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And I thought the casting and acting were absolutely spot-on.




I agree. But for me, the writing and the majority of the directing wasn't.


----------



## horacethegrey (Jun 29, 2006)

Well, I just watched this today, so here be my thoughts.

The movie was good. It's worthy of the title _Superman_, rather than those awful 3 & 4 movies. 

But man, I can't help but feel it could've been better.

I think the problem with Bryan Signer is that reveres the first Superman film too much. So much so that this movie feels like a love letter to Richard Donner's flick, rather than a film with any hint of originality. Hell, there were several shots in the movie that were *very * similar to those in the first film. I'm not saying that it's wrong for Singer to pay lip service to _Superman _ 1, but couldn't it have killed him to do something more original with the character for once? It's been almost 30 years since the release of the first movie, I think we can look forward rather than look back in regards to the Man of Steel.

As for the cast, well, they were okay. Brandon Routh was by no means hideous, I think he does all right here. My only problem is that he tries to hard to emulate Christopher Reeve, that he looks a bit stiff in the process. Despite what many people think, Reeve brought wit, screen prescence, and genuine warmth when he played the Man of Steel, qualities that don't come out in Routh's performance IMO. Also Reeve could garner some laughs as Clark Kent, whereas Routh doesn't.

Kate Bosworth is another matter. Sorry to say this, but I think she makes a fairly average Lois Lane. Now I've heard people rag on how Margot Kidder was the ugliest actress to play the role. Sure, she wasn't hot like Teri Hatcher or Erica Durance, but at least she brought some spunk and vitality to the role. Stuff that Bosworth fails to convey, as she spends most of the film looking wistfully away at the horizon (probably pining for Orlando Bloom  ).

And Kevin Spacey, well, his Luthor was fine, but a bit lacking in the megalomania department. A big part of Gene Hackman's appeal as the bald nemesis was his willingness to chew up the screen with insane rants and occasional black humor. Oh Spacey does this as well, the big problem is that he doesn't do enough of it, as there are long stretches where Luthor just lurks in the background. The energy Spacey exuded would helped the film's occasional languid pace. As for Luthor's grand masterplan in the movie, why does the hell it have to be real estate again? Couldn't he move to more greener pastures? Like say... world domination? 

Really, the story and plot were okay but really nothing to harp about. I think the only reason to watch this flick is to see what Superman can do with today's visual effects. And whoa, he does a LOT. And thankfully in small doses, so that each moment is filled with a real sense of wonder (BULLET IN THE EYE!  ). The musical score is another matter, while I'm glad they're still using John William's theme, couldn't it have killed them to get him to do a new score? John Ottman's score just doesn't mesh well with it.

So all in all, Superman does indeed return. I only wish it could've been more exciting.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I give it 7.5.

P.S. Another thing, is it just me or are the title credits just a bit tacky? Give me the old opening credits anyday!


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 29, 2006)

I liked it.  I was never a huge Superman fan, don't watch Smallville.  I think I had seen 2 trailers on TV and the opening just happen to coincide with my day off so I just went and saw it.

 I loved it, thought it was great. Brandon nailed the Clark/Superman role.  I liked Kevin Spacey as Lex.  The first movie had Lex trying to be a land Baron also by making California sink into the ocean so his desert property would be beach front property.

 I could have done with out the little kid being his son but it was handled pretty good.  I was waiting for Richard to die and he never did.  I actually felt sorry for him and he got a bum rap in this movie.  He was nice guy, cared about Lois and "his" son, risked his life to save them and Superman.

 I am actually surprised by the negativity in this thread.  And for the record Batman Begins was a GREAT movie, my favorite superhero movie.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 29, 2006)

It wasn't a bad movie, but it certainly wasn't a good one. Regarding my earlier post, I don't want a grim and gritty Superman, but I do want one with some depth. I mean, even Jesus has a few scenes in his movies where the stress of his life gets to him. With Superman in this movie, he's like, "Ho hum. Isn't it great that I can do _anything_?"

There's no drama there. You want a superhero to triumph over adversity, but he's never really challenged. Oh, sure, he gets shivved by Luthor*, but he has nothing to do with how he survives that situation. Our man of steel is inept, and is not deserving of his powers. Apparently he can even defy his own genre conventions. Kryptonite in small quantities in the rocks around him renders him powerless, but huge stalactites of kryptonite dangling right beside him do nothing.

I enjoyed it, and I actually liked Luthor, Richard, and Jimmy Olsen. But I didn't respect Superman in the least.


* I imagined Luthor whispering, "I learned this one in prison," just before he stabbed Superman. And then he says, "Now bend over."


----------



## shilsen (Jun 29, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Apparently he can even defy his own genre conventions. Kryptonite in small quantities in the rocks around him renders him powerless, but huge stalactites of kryptonite dangling right beside him do nothing.




Different strokes for different folks. I've always liked the idea of a Superman temporarily fighting through his weakness to kryptonite on sheer will. 

As for genre conventions - bah, humbug! Genre conventions exist only for messing around with, as this really fun game (run by a DM whose name I can't recall) illustrates.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 29, 2006)

Well I enjoyed it... right up until the lightning struck and the sound went out. 

Then I drove home in the driving rain with a free ticket to try again later.

I missed the entire third act. 

Chuck


----------



## jcfiala (Jun 29, 2006)

I'm not a huge superman fan, but I was pretty much held spellbound by the movie.  My wife, who likes superman in the movies and TV (but not the comics), was really digging it the whole time.

I'm thinking of seeing it again on IMAX later.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 29, 2006)

I wasn't expecting to like the movie all that much, based on what I'd heard, but fortunately, I was completely and utterly blown away and amazed by what I saw. From the very first opening voiceover of the late Marlon Brando, to the classic John Williams' Superman theme- just, wow. I'm not even a huge Superman fan, but I couldn't help but be overwhelmed with a sense of the iconic enormity of the character, and that I was- after so long- seeing him on the big screen again.

I'd heard that Kevin Spacey was a horrible, scenery-chewing, campy Lex Luthor; in my opinion, he nailed the role, in a way that even Gene Hackman didn't. Hackman- particularly in the second and later films- began to verge on caricature. Spacey played it straight all the way through (well, up until his outburst at the end, though that was frankly in keeping with the Luthor-from-film character). Someone here said Spacey wasn't scary enough- I'd have to disagree. Spacey's Luthor was intelligent and plotting, and I thought he was pretty dang menacing in the scene with Lois, where he was making thinly veiled threats against her and her son.

The rehash of the "real estate" scheme from the first Superman was, admittedly, a little bit of a letdown- I was expecting something bigger from the looting of the Fortress of Solitude and Kryptonian technology. Still, though, it shows consistency of character. I was just hoping Supes would say something about "not being able to teach an old dog new tricks," although it occurs to me he's used that line before on Luthor in the movies.

(Speaking of consistency of character- Luthor really needs to make a better selection in his choice of molls. First Eve, now Kitty. He needs to find someone with the backbone to stomach his megalomaniac schemes in the future. At least he finally ditched Otis.  )

I thought that Parker Posey did a really good job of walking the line between bad camp and drama with her character.

Routh, I'd read, was basically described as imitating Reeves' performance, which I wasn't looking forward to. Again, though, pleasantly disappointed. He really made the performance his own, I felt. Definitely a worthy heir to the title of Superman/Clark Kent (although I couldn't help but think, during the sea plane rescue, that James Marsden might not have been a good choice as well.)

Overall, I think everyone did an excellent job- casting was superb. There was a suitable amount of chemistry between Bosworth's Lane and Routh's Superman (with a noticeable lack thereof between Lane and Kent, which is as it should be). I did think the kid's haircut was annoying, but if that's the worst complaint one can raise, someone's doing a good job.

Another scene that I really enjoyed was the Superman/Lane flying scene, with "Can You Read My Mind" playing in the background. 

I had figured the kid would turn out to be Kent's, and I do find the "resolution" (such as it was) to be disappointing- what? He can't even raise his own son? Admittedly, I think there are some real complications with such a scenario- Lane's current relationship with Richard being only one of several- and, as my girlfriend pointed out, it is very likely something that will be dealt with in future installments.

I do think that the movie could have been shorter- if they did shave 20 minutes or so off, I wonder if they selected the best 20 minutes to cut. The "is he alive?" bit at the end seemed excessively drawn out. Again, though, a minor complaint when held up to the rest of the movie.

One thing that really struck me, though- during the scene with Lex and his thugs on Krypton Island, I couldn't help but think, "if only Batman were here now." Patrick Bale should have flown in on the Batwing, and jumped in there to take out the thugs. "Looks like you needed a hand." Then, when it was just Supes and Batman standing there facing Luthor, Superman would have said, "Do you mind?" as Batman shook his head. "By all means." And then Routh would have laid Lex out flat. 

They really should do a Superman/Batman crossover film at some point. Doesn't have to be in continuity with the movies, but it could be huge. I can't imagine it not being a no-brainer to studio execs.

One last thought- will Krypton island continue to grow now? Or will it just float around out there as a one big kryptonite infested chunk of rock, screwing up gravitational patterns? The world may never know.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Jun 29, 2006)

I thought exactly the same thing. That the rock might keep growing till it was planet sized.

I dont expect a Superman/Batman crossover anytime soon, cause i'f i'm not mistaken didnt seprate studios license the rights?


----------



## jcfiala (Jun 29, 2006)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> I thought exactly the same thing. That the rock might keep growing till it was planet sized.




I thought it was the water that was allowing it to grow... so it should pretty much stop now that it's up in space, I think.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Jun 29, 2006)

The water was the catalyst not the fuel.

Why did Supermans Ice fortress stop growing when it did?

I think Luthor may have "reprogramed" the crystal somehow to keep growing.


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 30, 2006)

I think it will just be a big astroid made of rock and kryptonite about the size of a city orbiting far from earth.  He had 5 other crystals to use to make it a continent.


----------



## Victim (Jun 30, 2006)

Lex was boosting about how he had advanced Kryptonian technology that would keep people from interfering with his continent, implying that he had tricks besides the ability to grow a really big crystal.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 30, 2006)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> DC strikes out again at the box office, maybe one year theyll get one right.




Your opinion of the movie aside, this part was a factual statement, and was false.

Strike out at the box office?  This movie is doing GREAT at the box office! $21M for partials on a Wednesday.  That's 8th highest gross on an opening Wednesday ever (with movies like all three of the Lord of the Rings and Spiderman Two and Passion of the Christ beating it).

And that is WITH a good chunk of the east coast being shut down for storms, and the movie being slightly longer and therefore playing less often than many films.

This movie is doing well so far.  This weekend will be the real box office story however.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 30, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Wow. While I can see how aspects of it wouldn't appeal to everyone, I'm surprised by the amount of negativity. I think it's one of the top five comic book movies I've ever seen.
> 
> I'm not _thrilled_ about the "super son" angle, but I'm interested in seeing how they follow it up in sequels. And I thought the casting and acting were absolutely spot-on.




I agree.  I thought this was a fantastic film.


----------



## ToddSchumacher (Jun 30, 2006)

I thought this was a very good film, not the FANTASTIC I was hoping for, but very good.

Considering the development hell this project has been in for past decade plus, and considering what this movie COULD have been. I'm happy.

My only complaint is in the action/non-action ratio (more action please), and wishing for an ending a bit more climatic than what was presented.

This kinda ties in with X-Men 3 in a way. When I went to see that movie, I watched the first two right before. And after, despite some grievances, I thought "Now that was a comic book movie" rather than a movie with comic book characters in it.


----------



## stevelabny (Jun 30, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Your opinion of the movie aside, this part was a factual statement, and was false.
> 
> Strike out at the box office?  This movie is doing GREAT at the box office! $21M for partials on a Wednesday.  That's 8th highest gross on an opening Wednesday ever (with movies like all three of the Lord of the Rings and Spiderman Two and Passion of the Christ beating it).
> 
> ...




Since I posted that late Tuesday night, before any box office results were in, its probably safe to assume I was talking about the content of the movie and not the amount of money it took in. 

But I can see where the confusion is. To be clear, the line just meant that Superman is a bad movie, like every other DC-based movie before it.


----------



## Darthjaye (Jun 30, 2006)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> Since I posted that late Tuesday night, before any box office results were in, its probably safe to assume I was talking about the content of the movie and not the amount of money it took in.
> 
> But I can see where the confusion is. To be clear, the line just meant that Superman is a bad movie, like every other DC-based movie before it.




So one should ask then.   What are all the good comic book adaptations you've seen thus far?


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 30, 2006)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> GAH.
> 
> this was bad.
> 
> ...




I agree with your sentiments on Superman REturns but thought Batman Regins was a homerun. Kinda disapointing to A. see that they are redoing the same moving from 22 years ago, as if Superman's rogue gallery consists of Lex Luthor, Richard Pryor and He-Man. (Dolph LUndron). 

I wasnt expecting a punisher superman (I dont think they can make that movie unless their taking the brother eye controlled superman) but I did want a modern take, like the script that floated around when Nik cage wanted to do it. I would have liked to see a different take on Lex Luthor. Lex is at his best when he's manipulating other super villians. 

Tell me steve, waht superhero movie did you like. You didnt like batman, you didnt like superman, you didnt like xmen... maybe its notthe movie but the genre?  Those are all three different types of movies. OUt of those three batman I loved but the other two sucked.


----------



## stevelabny (Jun 30, 2006)

Ok.. since you asked. 

X1 was really good, X2 was great, X3 was eh.
Spidey 1 was really good, Spidey 2 was good.
Daredevil was entertaining.
Fantastic Four blew it Dr. Doom (and casting Alba) but hit Johnny and Ben right.
Hulk was bad.
Elektra was awful.
I thought Blade1 was ridiculous and didn't watch the sequels.

Other DC movies aren't even worth mentioning... Supergirl? Steel? Catwoman? (I didn't actually see Catwoman, but I'm sure you'll let me slide)

The older Supermans carried the problem of most movies from around the time... ugly, slow, and yawn-inducing. Also, While Reeve (and Routh's) Superman is ok, since Superman is generally kind of boring, I don't like the silly Lex of Hackman (and Spacey)

the older 4 Batmans and the Batman Begins were all a completely different level of suck.
None of them seemed to have any clue about who Batman is.

That's my main problem with comic movies, not when they change little things, but when they screw up on big things and wind up breaking the feel of the characters. Conversely, when a character does something that is so right, so THEM, it scores an endless amount of points in my book. Just having Beast say "Oh my stars and garters" in X-3, made me relax enough to not throw eggs at the screen during the ending. 

When X1 was coming out, I was petrified it would suck, but when Rogue asked Wolverine if his claws hurt when they come out and he said "Every time" ... I was sold.

Now THIS movie doesn't really have a problem of character's feeling wrong, except for using a more comical Luthor, but it just gets the feel of a modern Superman STORY wrong. Superman's rogue gallery might not be as famous as Batman's or Spidey's but there are enough solid choices that it is inexcusable for the movie to not have a sequence where Superman can really flex his muscles.

Flying, being bulletproof and being able to lift heavy inanimate objects just isn't all that impressive anymore. There's ZERO tension or excitement to a scene where Superman takes out guys with guns.

In this day in age, it just doesn't fly.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 30, 2006)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> Ok.. since you asked.
> 
> X1 was really good, X2 was great, X3 was eh.
> Spidey 1 was really good, Spidey 2 was good.
> ...



So we pretty much agree on everything besides batman. Not to get too far off, but what made batman begins suck. I can understand batman 1-4 (one only sucking cause it got the joker wrong) , but it was far more original than the superman regurgitated plot. 

As for superman, you're reading my mind. It is just silly from a visiaul point of view to pit superman versus lex luthor. Yes, Lex is a great and genious villian, but Superman vs. the evil lex plot just doesnt come off on screen to make superman look..well super. Superman has an impressive, powerful rogue gallery that can truly test him. He also has more weekenses other than kryptonite such as magic and psionics. He comes across as a non-super, stalker whom seems a tad bit dainty.  If superman's rogue gallery isn't popular they should make them popular. Batman used Ra Aghul and the scarecrow. Plus the superman cartoon was just as popular as the batman cartoon, so the public has some familiarity with supes's other villians. The problem is that the the execs whom approve the movies are too afraid to venture outside of the norm with superman. Batman they'd go ahead and wing it.

Another problem is with 80 years of comicbook stories, the writers seem to want to write their own stories in the last three movies instead of really try to craft one from the comics.


----------



## theburningman (Jun 30, 2006)

I easily enjoyed this movie as much as Spiderman 2 and Batman Begins, my two favorite comic book films.  The title was Superman Returns, and it seemed that his return to earth and how much he means to humanity and humanity means to him were the main plotlines, rather than Lex's real estate scheme.  I liked that.

Hell, my only complaint to my nephew after the movie was over was the overuse of the forboding shaking of the environment to indicate oncoming danger.

As far as the Supes's illegitimate child subplot goes, I was actually glad they did it.  Mix things up a bit.  I hope they explore it further in the future.  With the set-up in the first act of Superman truly being the last of his kind, I could see a lot going on under the surface of the "ho-hum" conclusion to the son subplot.  And I like the ambiguity that remains in the relationship between Superman and Lois/Jason.  Gives them another story to tell.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 30, 2006)

Current estimates are looking at around $100M for the opening weekend (total for weekend).

It's running at 75% positive at rotten tomatoes right now (users have it at 88%).


----------



## Darthjaye (Jun 30, 2006)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> Daredevil was entertaining.




You had me until I read this.   It was neither entertaining nor good.   While I can agree with most of the other choices (except Batman Begins.), this was clearly one of the horrible adaptations.   If your telling me their representation of Bulleye's look and style was good, I have to completely disagree.   Just about every element of Daredevil hurt to watch.   I enjoyed Punisher more than I enjoyed DD, FF, X3, or even Bats 3 & 4.   I'm just trying to figure out how you say DD is more entertaining than Batman Begins though.    That's gotta be the oddest choice on the list.   FWIW Blade was better than DD too.   The reason I pick on this choice so much is that DD is one of my favorite Marvel characters.   What they did to the film version was a travesty IMO.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 1, 2006)

I found Daredevil entertaining as well.  And yes, I am a fan of the character and the comic, and a collector of the Frank Miller run.


----------



## stevelabny (Jul 1, 2006)

For those who missed or dont remmeber my rant on Batman Begins...
linkage to my post
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2335457&postcount=22

if you want to relive that whole thread...
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=136211

but we've been down that road before. no need to clog up another thread. if you want to yell at me, send me an instant  message, email, or respond to that thread.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Jul 1, 2006)

I liked it but I was also pretty disappointed by some stuff. Grim humor and Superman don't go well together. Why include the scene with the cannibal dog or making sure to point out that Superson did indeed kill another person? While it was fairly apparent to the viewer that Panda-Head was mashed potatoes, they went to the extra trouble to tell us that a 5 year old boy had done the deed. If I could cut four scenes from the movie, it would come infinately closer to portraying Superman.

Put those scenes in a Batman movie and I am all happy. It isn't the scene, it is the suitability of the scene for the character. Superman is not an Iron Age comic.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 1, 2006)

Just got back and did not really care for it, found it boring, my brother even fell asleep during it and had to be knudged.  It just did not hold my interest.  

One of the first things that ticked me off was the Kent dog, it is an old hollywood trick to get you to like someone by having them interact with a dog, people like that and what does Sups do, throw the ball to the next country, that was just mean.  From there it was just down hill.  Visually it was good but characters were not that great and felt we just saw the same scene over and over again with a different object, plane, the planet globe, the island.  300 million to make and this was all I got, sorry, was not impressed and did not have fun.  

Oh, Lex on the island at the end...use the radio!

6 maybe a 7.


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Jul 2, 2006)

Well I liked the Easter eggs (the ones I spotted anyways).

Superman's return was very similar to how he was introduced to the public in the animated series while his hospital scene reminded me of his death (and empty tomb).

Those pics the camera phone kid took - classic Superman covers, especially the car.

The dialogue around Jimmy Olson's pic (also in one of the trailers).

Perry White's line "Great Caesar's ghost!"

I think one of the dockworkers was Beppo, Bippo, Bibbo or whatever that guy's name was in the comics. I also thought the kid seeing thru Clark Kent's disguise (when his inhaler wouldn't work) was reminiscent of a similar scene from Mystery Men.

All that was needed was for Lex to say "Kneel before me, son of Jor-El." before his flunkies proceeded to use him as a Kryptonian punching bag.


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 2, 2006)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> You had me until I read this.   It was neither entertaining nor good.   While I can agree with most of the other choices (except Batman Begins.), this was clearly one of the horrible adaptations.   If your telling me their representation of Bulleye's look and style was good, I have to completely disagree.   Just about every element of Daredevil hurt to watch.   I enjoyed Punisher more than I enjoyed DD, FF, X3, or even Bats 3 & 4.   I'm just trying to figure out how you say DD is more entertaining than Batman Begins though.    That's gotta be the oddest choice on the list.   FWIW Blade was better than DD too.   The reason I pick on this choice so much is that DD is one of my favorite Marvel characters.   What they did to the film version was a travesty IMO.



I think Daredevil wasn't given its credit nor punisher. Those were really good comic book movies. The feel and style felt like i was watching the comicbook. I could have done with out the overacting kingpin, but i think Ben Affleck nailed the characters pysch. 

PUnisher was exactly what i expected it to from a punisher film. No punlisher kids, no self doubt, just ... some punishing.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Jul 2, 2006)

I heard the directors cut of Daredevil was a billion times better then the original release. I m dying to see it if its all that diffrent.

I dont remember the kid realizing clark was supes. I guess i gotta see the movie 2 more times to catch it!


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 2, 2006)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Kate Bosworth is another matter. Sorry to say this, but I think she makes a fairly average Lois Lane. Now I've heard people rag on how Margot Kidder was the ugliest actress to play the role. Sure, she wasn't hot like Teri Hatcher or Erica Durance, but at least she brought some spunk and vitality to the role. Stuff that Bosworth fails to convey, as she spends most of the film looking wistfully away at the horizon (probably pining for Orlando Bloom  ).
> 
> !





I enjoyed the movie. But I really thought Kate Bosworth was miscast. Lois is a strong woman she is very gutsy. This Lois did not seem strong or gutsy also Lois should be about 30 years old Kate Boworth is only 23 and it showed. I could not buy that she was this career woman who graduated from college and won a Pulitzer and had a five year old kid. I kept thinking what she did all this when she was 17 or 18 years old. :\ 

The actressesswho have played the role have had real strength and were a match for Superman they were not overshadowed by him this Lois was. I have always rooted for Lois and Clark to get togther but in this movie I found myself hoping she would stay with Richard. He is a decent guy and more this Lois's match.


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 2, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I enjoyed the movie. But I really thought Kate Bosworth was miscast. Lois is a strong woman she is very gutsy. This Lois did not seem strong or gutsy also Lois should be about 30 years old Kate Boworth is only 23 and it showed. I could not buy that she was this career woman who graduated from college and won a Pulitzer and had a five year old kid. I kept thinking what she did all this when she was 17 or 18 years old. :\
> 
> The actressesswho have played the role have had real strength and were a match for Superman they were not overshadowed by him this Lois was. I have always rooted for Lois and Clark to get togther but in this movie I found myself hoping she would stay with Richard. He is a decent guy and more this Lois's match.



A lot of people didnt like the casting of MIchael Keaton as the first batman. But Michael Keaton showed the wear of an older gentlement. Since then, it seems they go younger regardless of how the script calls for it. I'm getting tired of these superyoung actors playing some of these stars. I liked the casting of batman but I hated Katie Holmes as a "DA". She just didnt look like a woman. Save with Superman, but I didnt dig either casting choice. Kate seemed very young and like she was acting like Lois Lane. Felt like she was in her moms jewelry box with the make up on again. 

the whole movie had that glossy king kong fill to it. As if they didnt make any attempt to let you know that this is close to a remake.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 2, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> A lot of people didnt like the casting of MIchael Keaton as the first batman. But Michael Keaton showed the wear of an older gentlement. Since then, it seems they go younger regardless of how the script calls for it. I'm getting tired of these superyoung actors playing some of these stars. I liked the casting of batman but I hated Katie Holmes as a "DA". She just didnt look like a woman. Save with Superman, but I didnt dig either casting choice. Kate seemed very young and like she was acting like Lois Lane. Felt like she was in her moms jewelry box with the make up on again.
> 
> the whole movie had that glossy king kong fill to it. As if they didnt make any attempt to let you know that this is close to a remake.




Yep Hollywood's obssession for youth. Katie Holmes was wrong for the role she would have had to have graduated from law school when she was around 21. There are a lot of great actressess in their 30s they should be cast to play the rols of woman not young actressess who while talented just don't fit certain roles. 

Michael Keaton was awesome as Batmam.


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 2, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Yep Hollywood's obssession for youth. Katie Holmes was wrong for the role she would have had to have graduated from law school when she was around 21. There are a lot of great actressess in their 30s they should be cast to play the rols of woman not young actressess who while talented just don't fit certain roles.
> 
> Michael Keaton was awesome as Batmam.



yeah, Supes wanted you to believe he disapeared for five years and she grows up five years, but they look like a bunch of kids headed ot the prom. If they are going with a golden age fill they should cast an older looking superman.


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Jul 2, 2006)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> I dont remember the kid realizing clark was supes. I guess i gotta see the movie 2 more times to catch it!




Oh, the hard work we must do.   

IIRC, shortly after Superman appears publicly, the kid interrupts a distracted (and eavesdropping) Clark since "dad's office is so boring". Lois comes over and introduces the munchkin (and her husband too), who then has an asthma attack but his aspirator is empty. 

Even the dad kinda wondered about it after Lois gave him all sorts of Super-info then asked how tall Clark was, who just kinda waved goofily, right before Jimmy, Richard and "Trashcan Head" went on a food run.

Oh, the shiny rock, er, Kryptonite that Luthor and the gang got from the museum was also from the same place as the original rock that (Hackman) Luthor swiped in the original Superman - Addis Ababa.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Jul 2, 2006)

Nuclear Platypus said:
			
		

> Oh, the hard work we must do.
> 
> IIRC, shortly after Superman appears publicly, the kid interrupts a distracted (and eavesdropping) Clark since "dad's office is so boring". Lois comes over and introduces the munchkin (and her husband too), who then has an asthma attack but his aspirator is empty.
> 
> ...




I remember that scene, Louis and Richard were joking about clark being superman, but how did the kid "realize" it?


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 3, 2006)

Mrs. Noah and I saw it at the Imax today.  It was very good, very enjoyable.  It wasn't the best movie I ever saw but I liked it better than any of the prior Superman movies and most of the Batman movies.  It had some parts that dragged, like the "is superman dead" stuff toward the end.  I'm not sure I dig the son angle. But overall a very entertaining movie.  I have to say the 3D stuff didn't really add to the experience for me, however.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 3, 2006)

I liked it.  Yes, Lois could have been better cast, but I was impressed with the choices they took with the movie (a son, a stepfather, etc.).  This shows that Superman (the archtypical Good Guy) is living in a modern family.

I was suprised to read the negativity here, but then my opinions don't always match Enworld in general.

Anyhow, I look forward to the sequels.  I will pay money to see them, rather than, say X-Men.


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Jul 3, 2006)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> I remember that scene, Louis and Richard were joking about clark being superman, but how did the kid "realize" it?




The kid looked at Clark's face then had an asthma attack. Who'd believe that anyone could hide a secret identity behind a pair of glasses? Maybe it'd work for some boneheaded adult but that kid was pretty sharp ("You're bald.")


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jul 3, 2006)

Nuclear Platypus said:
			
		

> The kid looked at Clark's face then had an asthma attack.




Also in that same shot there's a picture of Superman framed just behind clark, it was slightly out of focus, but it was there for comparison.


----------



## Endur (Jul 3, 2006)

I saw the movie Tuesday night.  I liked it a lot, even in a packed audience (with one woman/model in the audience wearing a Supergirl outfit, complete with cape, super-bikini, and thigh high red boots).

In hindsight, yes, I think the plot was a little preposturous.  However, they were trying to connect it to Superman 1 & 2.

In Superman 2, if I recall correctly, Lex visits the Fortress of Solitude with the phantom zone criminals.   So Lex had some understanding of how the crystals work.  

In Superman 1, Lex tried a land grab with nuclear weapons (blasting california into the sea).  So this was basically trying for the same goal as before, but this time with kryptonian technology.

Lex having incompetent and/or treacherous minions is normal, so no suprises there.  

Kevin Spacey added the former prisoner psychology to Lex's behavior, right down to knifing Superman after he had been weakened by kryptonite.

Lois's child and new man in her life was an interesting twist.  Is it what I would have done?  Nope.  But neither would I have let Superman turn back time in Superman I to save Lois.

So from a purist perspective, they took liberties with the Superman story.  As did Batman Begins, but I can live with the liberties they took.

I liked the movie.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jul 3, 2006)

Just came back from seeing Superman. 

I just have to say that it's been a disappointing summer for movies so far. With the exception of MI:III (the only one I kinda enjoyed, but that wasnt that great either) everything that I've seen has been average at best. 

Superman returns was no exception. 

Brandon Routh was a good Superman and hands down the best thing in the movie. 
The plane rescue was a good sequence. 
But that was it. 

A 5 out of 10.


----------



## Sarigar (Jul 3, 2006)

I got chills (good ones) after the plane sequence.  That was a Superman action sequence.

Singer may have gone a different route, but in tying the movie to the first two, he may have limited his options.  He uses many concepts and ideas from the first two, and usually to great effect.  The "son becomes the father" and "father becomes the son" line comes straight from Brando.  The facial expressions of Routhe, very Reevish.  Williams' score, classic.  The opening credits, as with the originals, though thankfully whisking by at a faster pace.  

See it with kids, yours or someone else's (get permission if they aren't yours!).  Be a kid, not a critic.  Lucas didn't ruin your childhood memories, and Singer didn't turn Superman into something he's not!

Do like the woman mentioned above.  Wear a red cape and boots.  If you wanna dress up like Supergirl, that's optional.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 3, 2006)

Sarigar said:
			
		

> Be a kid, not a critic.




They say a picture is worth a thousand words...

http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20060702


----------



## Morrus (Jul 3, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> yeah, Supes wanted you to believe he disapeared for five years and she grows up five years, but they look like a bunch of kids headed ot the prom. If they are going with a golden age fill they should cast an older looking superman.




The problem with that is that this is supposed to be the relaunch of a franchise, with sequels, probably spread over 10 years or so (assuming a trilogy).  Singer has said that he was aware he was casting young, but didn't want them aging dramatically for the next two films.  It's a supsension of disbelief thing.


----------



## buzzard (Jul 3, 2006)

I thought it was a pretty good movie. Maybe not a great movie, but certainly entertaining with  very good special effects. What I particularly enjoyed was how they did a very good job of making sure you got an indea of how powerful Superman really is. Things like the eyeball deflecting a bullet and the vapor cones as he broke the sound barrier with nice little touches. I will pick up the DVD and look forward to sequels. As many others have said, I'd like to see a opponent worthy of Superman's power level without resorting to usting the kryptonite cop out. 

buzzard


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 3, 2006)

Sequels?  With the cost of the movie and its projected take I don't think it justifies a sequel.  I know it did not make me want to see more of the Man in Steel.


----------



## buzzard (Jul 3, 2006)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Sequels?  With the cost of the movie and its projected take I don't think it justifies a sequel.  I know it did not make me want to see more of the Man in Steel.




I think you ought o check some numbers before you make claims. even if you didn't like the movie, the box office receipts have been respectable. 

From the Washinton Post:
The Warner Bros. Pictures' big-budget comic book adventure, starring newcomer Brandon Routh, generated $52 million in receipts Friday through Sunday, grossing $84 million in its first five days, according to studio estimates released on Sunday.

"That is the largest five-day opening in Warner history," said Dan Fellman, president of Warner's domestic distribution.

I'd say that's not all that dissapointing. Granted, it was expensive to make, but reviews are generally favorable, and I don't expect it to be killed by word of moth or anything. I certainly expect it to recoup the $260 million without a lot of trouble.

buzzard


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 3, 2006)

buzzard said:
			
		

> I think you ought o check some numbers before you make claims. even if you didn't like the movie, the box office receipts have been respectable.
> 
> From the Washinton Post:
> The Warner Bros. Pictures' big-budget comic book adventure, starring newcomer Brandon Routh, generated $52 million in receipts Friday through Sunday, grossing $84 million in its first five days, according to studio estimates released on Sunday.
> ...



I have, see my thread on Weekend at the boxoffice.

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2923394&postcount=4

That being said I am not a hollywood movie maker, so odds are there will be another.


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 3, 2006)

buzzard said:
			
		

> I think you ought o check some numbers before you make claims. even if you didn't like the movie, the box office receipts have been respectable.
> 
> From the Washinton Post:
> The Warner Bros. Pictures' big-budget comic book adventure, starring newcomer Brandon Routh, generated $52 million in receipts Friday through Sunday, grossing $84 million in its first five days, according to studio estimates released on Sunday.
> ...



Just about every movie will have a sequel when the budget is this big. Superman needed not be good to get a sequal. Its going to easily make its money in box sets for eons, special editions, world releases. People just go see it to see Superman, not to see a good movie .


----------



## Darthjaye (Jul 3, 2006)

Most people forget that international distribution makes a large chunk of their profits too.    That and DVD sales.   Once all those numbers are in, you'll see why they will be making more.   

As for the movie, my son (nearly 4) and I both enjoyed it and he kept asking me to buy it on DVD now.  The casting of a young Lois wasn't the greatest, but everything else was good.   I enjoyed the movie from beginning to end and would have payed full price to see it.   I will more than likely see it again (of course after Pirates comes out).  Singer said in an interview, that he had filmed scenes with Supermans trip to Krypton, but dropped it for length of time and cause in the end, it did little for the main story.   He's hinted that (and as we all know the way DVD sales work by now) there will be a version released someday with that footage reintegrated.   It will be the Super Duper Ultimate Blue Ray Special wrapped in a real steel casing whatever yada yada edition of course.


----------



## Endur (Jul 3, 2006)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> With the cost of the movie and its projected take I don't think it justifies a sequel.




Movie costs use funny accounting rules.  Supposedly at least $40 million of the costs was money spent in the 90's i.e. money that wasn't really spent on this movie, but was spent on previous attempts to make a Superman sequel that never went into production.  

Superman will make a tremendous amount of money for Warner, probably more profits from this one movie than all the rest of Warner's movies for the year put together.


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 3, 2006)

Endur said:
			
		

> Movie costs use funny accounting rules.  Supposedly at least $40 million of the costs was money spent in the 90's i.e. money that wasn't really spent on this movie, but was spent on previous attempts to make a Superman sequel that never went into production.
> 
> Superman will make a tremendous amount of money for Warner, probably more profits from this one movie than all the rest of Warner's movies for the year put together.



Now that i seriously doubt. The movie has already been lumped by media into the Mediocre to failure range. It only made 50 million in its first week. Decent, but by no means a blockbuster. This weekend barely surprassed last years dismal revenues for movies. Superman will get its sequals but unfortuantely it failed to get anywhere close to spiderman. It did surpass Batman's opening weekend, but Batman did not have a holiday lead in nor did it have anywhere near the high budget.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 4, 2006)

I don't know if the overseas market will help Superman, because he is so iconic to America (did you notice how they did not say the Americian way, when they said the line truth, justice...).  Plus this weekend it is Pirates, and I will lay odds it will do better than 54 million for its opening weekend.   

Don't get me wrong Superman Returns will make a lot of money when it is all said and done but if you follow the takes it will be about 22 million next weekend, 10 the next, then 5 and then gone from the top 10.  Four weeks, domestic total 180 million to 220 million.    

Movies seem to depend more on domestic for sequels but that has been changing.  

Domestic: $84,208,000 81.0% (five days)
+ Foreign: $19,800,000 19.0% 
---------------------------------
= Worldwide: $104,008,000


----------



## Darthjaye (Jul 4, 2006)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> I don't know if the overseas market will help Superman, because he is so iconic to America (did you notice how they did not say the Americian way, when they said the line truth, justice...).  Plus this weekend it is Pirates, and I will lay odds it will do better than 54 million for its opening weekend.
> 
> Don't get me wrong Superman Returns will make a lot of money when it is all said and done but if you follow the takes it will be about 22 million next weekend, 10 the next, then 5 and then gone from the top 10.  Four weeks, domestic total 180 million to 220 million.
> 
> ...




The large part with your arguement here is the amount of markets it opened internationaly versus how many theaters it opened in domestically.   I can guarantee those numbers are misleading as it did not open in a lot of foriegn markets yet.   A big movie like this will last longer than 4 weeks in the top ten.   What other big movie is there besides Pirates?    Your assuming people will flock to see what other huge blockbusters this summer beyond these two?


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 4, 2006)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> The large part with your arguement here is the amount of markets it opened internationaly versus how many theaters it opened in domestically.   I can guarantee those numbers are misleading as it did not open in a lot of foriegn markets yet.   A big movie like this will last longer than 4 weeks in the top ten.   What other big movie is there besides Pirates?    Your assuming people will flock to see what other huge blockbusters this summer beyond these two?



Oh this movie will be in the top ten just about as long as the davinci codes been in the top ten maybe longer. I'd say it wont disappear from the top ten till mid august to mid september


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 4, 2006)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> The large part with your arguement here is the amount of markets it opened internationaly versus how many theaters it opened in domestically.   I can guarantee those numbers are misleading as it did not open in a lot of foriegn markets yet.   A big movie like this will last longer than 4 weeks in the top ten.   What other big movie is there besides Pirates?    Your assuming people will flock to see what other huge blockbusters this summer beyond these two?



Let us look at the next four weeks:
07.07: Pirates and A Scanner Darkly - both genre films, one with mass appeal
07.14: You, Me & Dupee - Date flick comedy but they do well
07.21: Clerks 2, Lady in the Water, Monster House, & My Super Ex-Girl Friend - wide appeal a lot of goers hit, there is something for every one, so money will be spread out 
07.28: Ant Bully and Miami Vice 


I think Superman has his work cut out for him.


----------



## Darthjaye (Jul 4, 2006)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Let us look at the next four weeks:
> 07.07: Pirates and A Scanner Darkly - both genre films, one with mass appeal
> 07.14: You, Me & Dupee - Date flick comedy but they do well
> 07.21: Clerks 2, Lady in the Water, Monster House, & My Super Ex-Girl Friend - wide appeal a lot of goers hit, there is something for every one, so money will be spread out
> ...




Only real challenging films from that list to me are Pirates, Clerks 2, and maybe Miami Vice (cause of the star power inherent in the film as well as the nostalgia of the older crowd)

Lady in the Water isn't going to have the kinda crowd MNS has had in past films.   Mainly due to his progressively worse fan reaction with each.   You, Me, and Dupree will have a good first week, but will drop off fast.   A Scanner Darkly isn't going to draw a high gross due to it being "genre film" and a rated R movie.  Ant Bully or Monster House will be a distraction, but I don't think either will grab enough to last in the top 5.  My Super Ex is the only wildcard in the entire list to me.   It can do well for both couples and the general crowd based on word of mouth.  With this list Superman Returns has a good chance to stay in the top 5 for a while.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 5, 2006)

I doubt 'A Scanner Darkly' is going to make any ripples. I dunno what it's like in larger markets, but we're a city of 150,000 and it's going straight to the art house, here. In August, sometime, I think.


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 5, 2006)

Just read a very good article breaking down how insiders already believe Superman was a flop. Kinda made me lean more towards the "it will take a long while to make its money back crowd". 

The movie cost over 250 million to make. There's also another 100 to 160 million in marketing. The movies opening 5 day weekend is about 33 to 40 percent below expected gross. I believe coming in around 80 million in its first weekend. The studio was hopign for the next superman, not another midrange franchise. There will be a sequal but with a scaled back budget.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 5, 2006)

Is it just me, or do all these movie threads seem insanely depressing these days?


----------



## Darthjaye (Jul 5, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or do all these movie threads seem insanely depressing these days?




Yeah, it's all doom and gloom with some of these guys sometimes.   Me, I loved the movie.   It's not the greatest ever made, but it's quite entertaining and worth a full price ticket.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 5, 2006)

Just saw the movie last night.

I liked the nostalgic touches.  The opening credits, the Superman theme, even Routh's look and performance.  All of that combined to give me the feeling of the old Superman revisited.

The special effects were good.  Superman was awe-inspiring to see in action, doing the kinds of things only Superman would be capable of.

Lex Luthor was good.  He was soft-spoken and pompous, reminiscent of the Hackman Lex, but had a much more brutal dark side.  I thought Spacey really sold the confrontation on the island.  It was very shocking, and very much in character.  Here was a Lex who didn't always have to be grimacing to be dangerous.  He was perfectly pleasant when it suited him to be, and brutally vicious when _that_ suited him.

Where the movie was weakest was in the plot, IMO.  There really was no good reason why Superman wouldn't have informed his loved ones of his intent before he left Earth.  I'm not saying he'd have called a press conference or anything.  But Ma and Pa?  Lois?  They'd have known.  That they didn't was a glaring contrivance.  And the plot that stems from that was slow-moving and without resolution.  Clark still hasn't found a place to live by the closing credits.

That said, I did enjoy this movie.  It wasn't perfect, but it was very good.  It's strengths were stronger than its weaknesses were weak, IMO.  I place it just below _Batman Begins_ and the Spider-man franchise, just above the X-Men franchise, as far as quality goes.  I'll most likely buy the DVD.

I'm curious, btw, how Superman will do when you factor in DVD sales.  It seems like one of those movies that will do extremely well in that regard.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Jul 5, 2006)

I wonder if they consider it a flop because they were hoping to make back the almost half a billion dollars they spent on the non-existant "Superman Lives!" that changed hands so often?


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 5, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> I wonder if they consider it a flop because they were hoping to make back the almost half a billion dollars they spent on the non-existant "Superman Lives!" that changed hands so often?



They wanted spiderman dollars not batman. They could understand the moderate numbers for batman because of all the previous failures they'd have to win back the audience. But they expected the audience to already be there with superman. The bar is Spiderman. Everyone's looking for the next one.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 5, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or do all these movie threads seem insanely depressing these days?



I don't know about depressing or gloom and doom, I think it is the changing nature of movies and the trend to compare movies to other movies in the same genre.  Most of us are not critics and judge a movie on its own merits but on what has come before.  It is also our age, a lot of us are getting old and we grew up during those years when Hollywood was re-invented by Star Wars, the late 70's and the 80's.  A lot of what we are seeing these days are the same stuff we have seen over and over again with just more flash and pretty faces. There is a lack of character (don't know what else to call it) from movies in the last two or three years.  

You also have the stats, which like baseball is becoming the game, all about the numbers.  It does not matter if the movies is good or bad but what the numbers come out to.  I enjoy the numbers, I blame D&D.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 5, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I'm curious, btw, how Superman will do when you factor in DVD sales.  It seems like one of those movies that will do extremely well in that regard.




It will kick butt but it is hard to find data on DVD sales.  Last year there was an investigation on their sales and the way they are reported and used as tax write offs.  Seems the companies say sales are what they created and sold to stores, the stores report their sales and the unsold diffentance was reported as deductions or some such.  What was happening was they would flood the market with DVDs to get a greater write-off.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 5, 2006)

*My Take*

The special effects were good.

The action sequences were fair.

Overall, I disliked the movie.

1. I disliked the son of Lois. 

2. I disliked how young Lois looks with her son. Look more like brother and sister.

3. Superman stalking Lois? Creepy.

4. Superman not fighting anyone with any abilities? Suck.

5. Superman getting the beat down from normal thugs due to Kyrptonite? Suck.

6. Superman not realizing that the whole thing is kryptonite? Suck.

7. Superman suddenly being able to lift the whole thing of kryptonite despite being powerless in it early? Suck.

8. Last twenty minutes of the film? Suck. Way to kill an action sequence.

9. The deaths of thugs? Suck.

10. Superman leaving Lex on an island? Suck.

11. Lex talking about his advanced technology from Krypton when there apparently was none? Suck.

12. Lois getting on a boat with her son? Suck.

13. Clark being a complete clutz? In 1980 it might've been good but how is he supposed to be a reporter if he can't walk across the room without stumbling? Suck.

14. The inability to connect Clark's return to Superman's return? Ugh.

I could go on for a while but well,
I could go on, but take away the special effects and you're not left with much.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 5, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Just got back from seeing it. An amazing, awesome movie all the way around. It's both a fantastic continuation of the first two films, and it's own movie all at the same time. I really can't say too many good things about it.



Absolutely agreed. Tied (with District B13) for my favorite movie so far this year. They did (almost) everything right in my eyes, and I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

The only thing I didn't like was Lois/Bosworth, who just didn't work for me. But everything else was fantastic (Jimmy Olsen was worth the price of admission on his own). And including the John Williams theme(s) was awesome.

A 9/10.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 5, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> 11. Superman taking too long to save someone with no brakes? And not recognizing her? Suck.




Superman can't be everywhere.
I'm pretty sure this is the first time he's laid eyes on her in his life. Where's he suppossed to recognize her from?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 5, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Superman can't be everywhere.
> I'm pretty sure this is the first time he's laid eyes on her in his life. Where's he suppossed to recognize her from?




Isn't Kitty supposed to be the same flame of Lex from previous movies? If not, my bad.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 5, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Isn't Kitty supposed to be the same flame of Lex from previous movies? If not, my bad.



Your bad.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 5, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Where the movie was weakest was in the plot, IMO.  There really was no good reason why Superman wouldn't have informed his loved ones of his intent before he left Earth.  I'm not saying he'd have called a press conference or anything.  But Ma and Pa?  Lois?  They'd have known.  That they didn't was a glaring contrivance.  And the plot that stems from that was slow-moving and without resolution.  Clark still hasn't found a place to live by the closing credits.




1) I think Ma did know.  "If Pa were alive he would never have let you go" implies that Clark said goodbye to his mom beforehand.

2) One reviewer said that the "you were gone, now you are back" deal was a meta point directed at the audience.  Superman has been gone for a long time (from the movie theatres), but now he is back.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 5, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Isn't Kitty supposed to be the same flame of Lex from previous movies? If not, my bad.




No, that was Eve Teschmacher. This was Kitty Kowalski.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jul 5, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Where the movie was weakest was in the plot, IMO.  There really was no good reason why Superman wouldn't have informed his loved ones of his intent before he left Earth.  I'm not saying he'd have called a press conference or anything.  But Ma and Pa?  Lois?  They'd have known.  That they didn't was a glaring contrivance.




Pa is dead, and his mother clearly knew where he went and what he was doing- she even asks him if he found what he was looking for. Her upset is caused by not knowing what happened to him in the meantime, or if he was coming back, but to be fair- it's probably a little difficult to write from hundreds or thousands of light years away.

As for Lois- they made it pretty clear that she doesn't really consider Clark much at all- nor did she in the other films (though Kidder's Lois did seem to notice him a little more than Bosworth's). Jimmy and Perry seemed to know about Clark's leaving as well- Perry not really caring (which was odd, frankly, as Kent is supposed to be one of his best reporters).



> And the plot that stems from that was slow-moving and without resolution.  Clark still hasn't found a place to live by the closing credits.




He has, but only a gradually. I got the sense that they'd cut out some of his return parts- such as, perhaps, a scene where he decided he didn't want to be Superman anymore. He definitely seemed reluctant to return to the tights when the plane was in trouble. You could see in his face when the crowds cheered him, and his statement about hearing the world crying out for a savior, though, that he realized this was where he was needed, and where his home really was.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 5, 2006)

It was OK.  I really dislike the campy movie Luthor.  There was too much recycling going on from the first 2 movies, lines, plot elements, etc.   Superman's kid is lame.  Superman scanning Lois' house with his x-ray vision was creepy, was he hoping to catch her and her hubby going at it?  Jeez man, respect privacy!


Some good scenes but it wasn't a great movie.


----------



## soulforge (Jul 5, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> 14. The inability to connect Clark's return to Superman's return? Ugh.




This is one I don't understand.  I've heard it from more people than just you, but it just seems to really fly in the face of the core of Superman.

People complain when a movie doesn't stick to it's basic belief.  I think this is also your argument when you mention "9. The deaths of thugs? Suck."  I think you could be saying that you didn't like that the fight wasn't an awesome battle, but I get more the feeling that you don't think Superman should have left them to die.

The Superman saving everyone thing I can definitely understand, although I don't really have those feelings.  I actually felt that he didn't really have any true way of saving them, and just had to focus on saving the millions of people in the world by removing that hunk of rock.

It's a comic book movie.  You seriously want them to just connect a and b that Superman is Clark?  I mean if so that's going to drastically change the movie.  It's one of those suspension of disbelief things where if your gonna bite the bullet and believe in a man with blue tights and red undies flying about you shouldn't focus on his cover being a dorky guy in glasses.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and felt it was better than the original even.  IMO.


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 5, 2006)

I thought the movie was ok, on its own merits - not great, since I'd have liked to see Superman face something a little more dynamic than a large, greenish rock - but coming from Singer, it was something of a disappointment.

When he did the X-Men movies, he clearly wasn't afraid to do what he had to in order to make good movies out of the material he was working with, and didn't feel confined by the need to stay exactly true to the source material. 

That clearly wasn't the case with the Superman movie - it felt in most ways like a rehash of the old movies, and all the silly contrivances surrounding the Superman persona were glaringly on display. It reminded me of the Spiderman movies that way, with their "oh-boy, golly-gosh-darn" dialogue that, for me, was cringe inducing. I don't want an ode to childhood nostalgia, I want an interesting movie based on a comic book.

Thank God for the first two X-Men movies and Batman Begins...


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 5, 2006)

soulforge said:
			
		

> This is one I don't understand. I've heard it from more people than just you, but it just seems to really fly in the face of the core of Superman.




It's clearly one of those things you can't get rid of and still have it be Superman, but I for one would have appreciated it if, rather than drawing attention to what's the corniest, oldest joke in the book, as far as the whole Superman character is concerned, they just stayed away from it as much as possible. 

I think the way they handled it in the movie failed as an in-joke, and just served to accentuate the basic silliness of the character. (as did a lot of other things, like having him stop an actual bank robbery)


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 5, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Pa is dead, and his mother clearly knew where he went and what he was doing- she even asks him if he found what he was looking for. Her upset is caused by not knowing what happened to him in the meantime, or if he was coming back, but to be fair- it's probably a little difficult to write from hundreds or thousands of light years away.



Hrm.  Another poster mentions this as well, so perhaps I missed the dialogue that clued us in on Ma having known.  This makes me feel better.







> As for Lois- they made it pretty clear that she doesn't really consider Clark much at all- nor did she in the other films (though Kidder's Lois did seem to notice him a little more than Bosworth's). Jimmy and Perry seemed to know about Clark's leaving as well- Perry not really caring (which was odd, frankly, as Kent is supposed to be one of his best reporters).



Even assuming everything you say is true and Lois _doesn't_ see Clark as anything much, Lois and _Superman_ had a relationship.  _Superman_ would have told her goodbye.  Lois says as much in the movie, and Supes is speechless, largely because, IMO, there really is no good reason why he wouldn't have met with her before leaving, possibly forever.  The reason they gave for him not telling her "it would have been too painful" strikes me as .







> He has, but only a gradually.



Unless I missed a scene, Clark Kent had still not found an apartment by the end of the movie.  It wouldn't have bothered me at all, if they hadn't made a point of the fact that he was looking for a place to live _several times_ throughout the movie.  Instead of another stalker scene at the Lane residence at the end, I'd have liked to see him moving in to a new pad.  Possibly putting a picture of the kid on the mantle.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 5, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> It was OK.  I really dislike the campy movie Luthor.



I'm curious.  When exactly was Lex campy?  When he was plotting to destroy the North American continent?  When he shoved a dagger into Superman's side, or was brutally kicking him on the ground?

From comments here and elsewhere, I went into the movie expecting Lex to be cheesy.  Instead, I was rather surprised at the degree of brutality Spacey brought to the character.  Though he shared a bit of the soft-spoken mannerisms of Hackman's Lex, I found their differences to be profound.

Hackman's Lex wrapped a piece of kryptonite around Superman's neck.

Spacey's Lex shoved a kryptonite dagger into his guts.

World of difference.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 5, 2006)

His stupid girlfriend was a major part of it.  The intro with him scheming the widows money was cheesy.  But I just got no aura of menace from Luthor.  I never got the impression that he was much more than a criminal who happened to think big and found some Kryptonite.  I always preferred the buisness tycoon with a hint of mad scientist Lex from the Superman comics after J. Byrne redid it.  Or the Luthor from the JLU series.   Luthor from all the Superman movies comes off as a bit of a bumbler to me.  He makes these world shaking plans, but leaves key elements for his sentimental girlfriends to screw up.  The movie Luthor give me silver age silliness vibes.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 5, 2006)

I thought the movie was good, but could have used more energy. I eagerly await the DVD with the cut scenes and commentary and so forth and so on.

I wonder why Luther and his lackies only lived on the boat, and seemed to avoid the big palace. Granted, they cracked part of the house with the first crystal, but it was a big place there should have been other rooms.

So, what happens to Luther (and the spare crystals) now? Presumably Supes can retrieve the crystals left with the rock - if he can endure kryptonite poisoning long enough to move the rock into space, then he can be there long enough to get the crystals. But what about Luther? Presumably, he eats the dog and Kitty, so he's got food but no water. He can single for help with the chopper's radio. Hrm...

Dear God In Heaven!

Luther uses the advanced alien technology to grow that little spit on land he is on into a vast island, but this creates atypical phenominia and later it becomes the LOST island.

Maybe not.

In any event, this was better than no Superman at all. And better than Superman 3, 4 and 5.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 5, 2006)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> In any event, this was better than no Superman at all. And better than Superman 3, 4 and 5.




Superman V?  Was that the movie that basically was aborted without being finished or released, before people came to their senses and made Superman Returns?


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 6, 2006)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I wonder why Luther and his lackies only lived on the boat, and seemed to avoid the big palace. Granted, they cracked part of the house with the first crystal, but it was a big place there should have been other rooms.
> 
> So, what happens to Luther (and the spare crystals) now? Presumably Supes can retrieve the crystals left with the rock - if he can endure kryptonite poisoning long enough to move the rock into space, then he can be there long enough to get the crystals. But what about Luther? Presumably, he eats the dog and Kitty, so he's got food but no water. He can single for help with the chopper's radio. Hrm...




Well, a dusty mansion where someone died recently isn't exactly the most appealing place to live... And considering what Luthor had to do to get that money *shudder*, he's got other good reasons for living on the boat.

As far as the crystals go - unless he's got some super homing-sense, how would he find them? Without talking to Kitty or Luthor, he won't even know where they ended up.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 6, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> As far as the crystals go - unless he's got some super homing-sense, how would he find them? Without talking to Kitty or Luthor, he won't even know where they ended up.



If I remember correctly, Kitty brushed them out of the chopper door on the island of kryptonite-infused crystal.  So presumably, they were hurtled into space along with the rest of the rock.

I seem to recall them splashing into water, but assume that had to be a puddle on the island, rather than actual ocean, since if they were dumped into actual ocean Supes would have the same problem island again in another few minutes, only seven times as large.


----------



## Darthjaye (Jul 6, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, Kitty brushed them out of the chopper door on the island of kryptonite-infused crystal.  So presumably, they were hurtled into space along with the rest of the rock.
> 
> I seem to recall them splashing into water, but assume that had to be a puddle on the island, rather than actual ocean, since if they were dumped into actual ocean Supes would have the same problem island again in another few minutes, only seven times as large.




Minus the Green Kryptonite problem however as they were not wrapped in green like the first one was.   Luthor even pointed out how the crystal had taken on the properties of of what's "around" it.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 6, 2006)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> Minus the Green Kryptonite problem however as they were not wrapped in green like the first one was.   Luthor even pointed out how the crystal had taken on the properties of of what's "around" it.



I'm not sure the billions of people killed by the destruction of the North American continent would appreciate the distinction.

"Sure, the billion of us are dead, but at least Superman can land on the new continent without getting hurt."


----------



## Victim (Jul 6, 2006)

Without the kryptonite shell, wouldn't the additional crystals have proved rather trivial for Superman to deal with though?  If he can toss an island make of kryptonite that had time to grow into space, dealing with a few normal islands that are just getting started should be a piece of cake.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jul 7, 2006)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> Minus the Green Kryptonite problem however as they were not wrapped in green like the first one was.   Luthor even pointed out how the crystal had taken on the properties of of what's "around" it.




Which brings up a point I think I mentioned earlier, which was- why didn't Luthor throw some gold or silver or something in the little Kryptonite tube with the crystal? Sure, he mentioned that real estate is more valuable than precious metals, but c'mon- a continent "salted" with gold veins in addition to the kryptonite (to keep Supes out) is double the bonus!!!


----------



## Darthjaye (Jul 7, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Which brings up a point I think I mentioned earlier, which was- why didn't Luthor throw some gold or silver or something in the little Kryptonite tube with the crystal? Sure, he mentioned that real estate is more valuable than precious metals, but c'mon- a continent "salted" with gold veins in addition to the kryptonite (to keep Supes out) is double the bonus!!!




Heck with the rarity of platinum why not even that?   Or diamonds for that matter?   We have our answer though.   Had Luthor rid himself of Superman he would have employed the other crystals to develop whatever "tech" he was speaking of acquiring and more than likely would have implemented some sort of quick money making scheme once he had staked out the new continent as his own.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 7, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> Without the kryptonite shell, wouldn't the additional crystals have proved rather trivial for Superman to deal with though?  If he can toss an island make of kryptonite that had time to grow into space, dealing with a few normal islands that are just getting started should be a piece of cake.



Although it wouldn't be lethal to Superman directly, I can't imagine a mass seven times as large as the one he lifted wouldn't be a problem for him.  A rather big problem.  Hardly a piece of cake.  You're also forgetting that he would  have to deal with it _immediately after dealing with the Kryptonite_.  So all that time he's being flown to the hospital and unconcious while people think he's dead?  That crystal is growing.

Take the crystal from the movie.  Multiply that by seven.  Now give it, not minutes, but _hours_ to grow.

I'm not saying Superman wouldn't have been able to find a way of dealing with it.  He's Superman.  But the point is that the movie wouldn't have ended there, if the crystals had fallen into the ocean.  _That_ would have been the tour de force.  Which is why I believe they merely fell into a puddle on the surface of the already growing rock, and were jettisoned into space with it.


----------



## danzig138 (Jul 7, 2006)

ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> He lacked the sinisterness and nuances that (snip) and Gene Hackman brought to the part.



Hehe. That's funny. I must have missed that scene. 



> They were REALLY trying to make Superman a messianic hero.



I'm pretty sure they've been doing that in the comics for a while. 



> And? The film was dedicated to Christopher and Dana Reeves. This earned a standing round of applause from the crowd where I saw it.



 While I wouldn't expect them not to dedicate it to them, this seems to me like Mick Foley mentioning the name of the town he's in and giving it a thumbs up for cheap pops. 



> Don't you mean "Lanaville"?  'Cause that's what it's felels like to me.



I sure woudn't mind if a big rock from outer space (or anywhere) fell on her and killed her.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 7, 2006)

I enjoyed the film, but I wasn't excited by it one bit.

Kate Bosworth was, plainly and simply, the wrong choice for Lois Lane. I think the character was written well - I like her conversation with her son about whether or not they're trespassing on Lex Luthor's yacht - but she simply failed to convey the strong personality and confidence that Margot Kidder and Teri Hatcher brought to the role. She came across as a little weak-willed, actually - unconvincingly arguing she and humanity don't need Superman, wheedling Richard White to convince Perry to let her pick her own stories to cover - and that's very disappointing.

Plus, on a personal note, I think she's also pretty unattractive. Neither pretty nor sexy. I'd rather see Lois played by a handsome woman like Margot Kidder, who was no bombshell but at least seemed like a *woman*. Teri Hatcher at the beginning of _Lois and Clark_ was both beautiful and curvacious, as well as determined. Bosworth was . . . nothing.

I didn't much like Lex's scheme, aesthetically, but I'm prepared to say that it makes sense for the character as established by previous film continuity. His plans don't always make sense but I think he's always been looking to dramatically leap into a position of power, after which he can just use his new resources to batter his way through any problems or opposition that arise.

Kevin Spacey's performance was good, if restricted to a limited range by the script. It's a little jarring to hear folksy turns of phrase that would have sounded natural in Gene Hackman's somewhat hucksterish Lex's mouth coming from a more refined and aristocratic version of the character. Spacey didn't quite deliver lines like "This is kind of a little reunion, isn't it? Heck, I'm a fan!" either like he was mocking that way of talking or like he genuinely talked that way.

I thought that Richard White and "Jason-El" were very solid. I approve heartily of the child character contributing to the story without unreasonably overshadowing the main adult characters, and that he entirely lacked the attitude that passes for charming in badly-written kid roles. Meanwhile, I liked that Richard was a decent, even heroic guy who didn't even get overly jealous about Lois' involvement with Superman - and it's a nice touch that he doesn't take Clark Kent seriously as a romantic rival and get jealous about him, because it demonstrates that his worries about Superman are based in the awesomeness of Superman, not the maleness of other people Lois spends time with.

Frank Langella and Sam Huntington pulled their supporting roles off well, though I thought characterising Jimmy Olsen like he'd just stepped in off the street where he wore a flatcap and knickerbockers and sold newspapers to 1930s Chicagoans was a little awkward. That impression passed quickly once he had more to do than exclaim over Clark Kent and exposit the five years of Lois Lane's life that Clark missed. Langella was solid as Perry White, though given a little too little to do.

Finally, there's nothing I can really say to criticise Brandon Routh's performance. I thought it was interesting that they eschewed the massive Alex Ross look in favour of a "regular guy in good shape"-type Superman, which is obviously an element held over from the Donner films but which makes a lot of sense in terms of Clark Kent coming across as a handome and fit guy who doesn't stand out much at all. A huge, handsome, hypermuscular Clark Kent who's not on Lois Lane's radar requires a different characterisation where he's dismissed as a rural farmboy (as in _Smallville_, from time to time) or jock type. That's not the Donner mold, though, so it's not the way Singer plays it.

Like Christopher Reeve and, in fact, Dean Cain, Routh's Superman is the strong, silent type who looks resolute and disapproving when dealing with criminals. Admittedly, there's not a lot for Superman to actually say - and cracking wise like Spiderman or mouthing off like Wolverine wouldn't really suit the character at all - but it's interesting that Superman doesn't communicate much even with the people he's come to save (like the cops or security guards, whichever they were, on the roof with the crook and the minigun). Whether that evinces reserve on Superman's part and implies that he feels it's pretty obvious why he's there and what he's going to do, or simply a focus on doing the job without wasting time on reassurances until everyone is really safe, I don't know, but it's an interesting element of characterisation that's not always present in other versions of the character. Does it emphasise the ambiguities of Superman as an alien and a saviour that people don't always even know that they're being rescued by him until they're already safe?

My major criticisms of the film are in the pacing. It's simply takes too long to cover the events of the narrative. I'm forgiving of lengthy openings like the scenes at the Kent farm, especially in a film like this where the time it takes Clark to get back to Metropolis reflects the uneasy transition back into society he faces as Clark Kent and as Superman, but the rest of the film is packed with scenes which are just longer than they need to be: the first test of the Kryptonian crystal growth in the widow's mansion, every scene where electrical devices black out after the first few shots, and innumerable dialogue-free transitions and shots held at the beginning and end of scenes for what seems to be no reason.

Even some of the action sequences drag on longer than they strictly need to - Lois, Richard, and Jason trapped in the galley of the sinking yacht, for instance. Since there can be no question that Superman will save them, there is no real suspense, and there's even less the longer you draw it out.

The worst offender, pacing-wise, is the sequence after Superman pushes the crystal island into space and falls to Earth. I can deal with the heavy-handed Christ metaphor, and I liked the touch of Martha Kent in the crowd outside the hospital. Lois' whispering the truth of Jason's parentage (one presumes) into Superman's ear is likewise worthwhile, even necessary. Again, though, so much of it is tension-free - no-one in any theater above the age of five believed Superman wouldn't survive, and most of those under five would have known he would too, so why drag out this bogus medical revival so long?

I like the spaceplane rescue, and I like Superman saving the residents of Metropolis from the effects of the earthquake. I thought the special effects were flawless and very cool - kudos to the team for taking the new _Smallville_-style heat vision effects on board but referring to the 70s-style "beams of colour" version at the climax.

I agree with everyone who said that they're interested to see the next film, both because I believe Singer will learn from his misjudgements on this one (though I fear nothing can be done about Bosworth as Lois Lane) and because I'm curious to see how they play with the addition of "Jason-El" to everyone's lives.

I just can't say I got excited during _Superman Returns_, and I think that's a shame.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jul 8, 2006)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Like Christopher Reeve and, in fact, Dean Cain, Routh's Superman is the strong, silent type who looks resolute and disapproving when dealing with criminals... Whether that evinces reserve on Superman's part and implies that he feels it's pretty obvious why he's there and what he's going to do, or simply a focus on doing the job without wasting time on reassurances until everyone is really safe, I don't know, but it's an interesting element of characterisation that's not always present in other versions of the character. Does it emphasise the ambiguities of Superman as an alien and a saviour that people don't always even know that they're being rescued by him until they're already safe?




I noticed this, too, and it actually got me to looking at Superman/Clark Kent in a different way than I ever had before. I think the tendency is to look at Clark Kent as the bumbling, hucksterish secret identity of Superman, much as Bruce Wayne is seen as the decadent, playboyish secret identity of Batman. Thus it might seem weird that Superman doesn't come across with a bit more bravado in his superheroic guise, since he is freed of having to perform to keep his secret.

The performance Routh gave, however, made me start to look at Superman and Clark Kent as the same person, no "secret identities" involved. IE, Clark Kent was a farm boy who grew up as an outsider due to his abilities and the need to keep them secret. His social skills should be somewhat malformed; it shouldn't be seen as an act that he is bumbling and shy around Lois Lane, who he nurtures a strong affection for- he acts that way because he truly hasn't developed the social skills of emotional interaction at that level. So he comes across that way not because he's performing, but because that's who he is. When he puts on the Superman tights, he isn't changing at all- he's still awkward Clark Kent who doesn't really know how to interact quite so socially with people. He's now in a different role from other people's perceptions, though- he's their savior and hero, and rather than see him as awkward, they become awkward because, really, how do you interact with someone on that level? So Superman ends up coming across as the cool collected one, in a complete role reversal. In such a situation, he has the same reaction to other people's stumbling awkwardness as they do to him as Clark Kent (at least in the best of situations) where he just tries to sympathize with them and not make them feel any more ill at ease. So Superman presents himself as this strong silent type, but he's fundamentally the same all over.

Contrast, then, with someone like Batman, who (IMO) really is the underlying personality, and the Bruce Wayne identity is just one that he adopts out of necessity to deal with the rest of the world. Two different characters, essentially.

I don't know, maybe that's not the real concept behind Superman, but watching Routh's performance, that's the way I started to view the character.

BTW, Mhacdebhandia, I just wanted to say that I found this to be a really well written and insightful review. Thanks for sharing it!


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 8, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> I noticed this, too, and it actually got me to looking at Superman/Clark Kent in a different way than I ever had before.




It's long been said that one of the central differences between Superman and Batman is that for Superman, Superman is the secret ID whereas for Batman, Bruce Wayne is the act. That has been the central change in Superman's character in modern times. In the comics.. he simply doesn't do the stumbling act and hasn't for some time. But most people expect it from older comics and the media portrayals of the character.


----------



## DouglasFir (Jul 8, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I'm curious.  When exactly was Lex campy?  When he was plotting to destroy the North American continent?  When he shoved a dagger into Superman's side, or was brutally kicking him on the ground?
> 
> From comments here and elsewhere, I went into the movie expecting Lex to be cheesy.  Instead, I was rather surprised at the degree of brutality Spacey brought to the character.  Though he shared a bit of the soft-spoken mannerisms of Hackman's Lex, I found their differences to be profound.
> 
> ...




I'll go out on a limb here and say that I actually preferred Spacey's Lex to Hackman's! I mean Lex is Superman's nemesis and as such he should actually be pretty threatening - Hackman's Lex was pretty much a joke!


----------



## Agamon (Jul 9, 2006)

I enjoyed this movie so much, I drove 3 hours just to watch it a 2nd time in IMAX 3D.  Routh is a perfect compliment to both Reeve's Superman and Clark Kent.  Spacey took Hackman's goofy Luthor, and without changing the essense of the character, made him more menacing and plausable as a foe for Supes.  Bosworth was a decent Lois Lane.  She obviously wasn't trying to emulate Kidder's character, but the writers did a good enough job of that for her.  She a lot cuter as a brunette than blonde, too, I gotta say.  The guy playing Jimmy was awsome.  The guy playing White was pretty good, too.  Marsen's character is as wussy as his Cyclops, unfortunately.  But that helps make Lois look stronger, I suppose (we sure know who wears the pants in that household).

Kudos to Singer for going with the homage to the original films.  While that unfortunately brings baggage forth as cannon from those movies, such as large plastic 'S' logo nets, super-memory sucking kisses, and spinning the world around backwards to reverse time, at least the new movie had no such silliness.  The constant nods ot the originals thorughout the movie were great, especially the score.  I hardly ever enjoy the opening credits of a movie, but this was certinaly an exception.

Why this movie is being panned by some is beyond me.  But then, I didn't much like PotC, so to each their own, I guess.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 9, 2006)

DouglasFir said:
			
		

> I'll go out on a limb here and say that I actually preferred Spacey's Lex to Hackman's! I mean Lex is Superman's nemesis and as such he should actually be pretty threatening - Hackman's Lex was pretty much a joke!



I agree.  The only problem I had was the girlfriend.  She was very much reminiscent of Hackman Lex's squeeze, and interjected too much silliness into Lex's scenes for my taste.  Had she been replaced with a more competent henchwoman, he would have come across as more serious in general, and his more dangerous, aristocratic interpretation would have really shone.







			
				Agamon said:
			
		

> Kudos to Singer for going with the homage to the original films.



It was too much of an homage in my eyes.  I was particularly disappointed that they went with the "bumbling Clark Kent."  Eventually, Lois is supposed to choose Clark over Superman.  Choose the real personality over the flashy powers.  But Reeves' Clark Kent was never the kind of man Lois _would_ fall for.  It was one of the strongest points of the _Lois and Clark_ TV series, IMO, that Clark Kent was actually a cool enough guy that you could believe Lois actually picking him over Superman.  Still wholesome and good, but with positive qualities.  Reeves' Clark just does not strike me as the kind of guy a powerful, career-oriented woman like Lois Lane is going to pick over Superman.  I was disappointed to see that Singer decided to use that interpretation, pretty much whole-turkey.







> Why this movie is being panned by some is beyond me.



Well, I did enjoy the movie.  I just wish it would have been even better.  I had hoped for a Spider-man level of quality, and wound up with an X-Men level of quality.  Good, but not great.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 9, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> I noticed this, too, and it actually got me to looking at Superman/Clark Kent in a different way than I ever had before. I think the tendency is to look at Clark Kent as the bumbling, hucksterish secret identity of Superman, much as Bruce Wayne is seen as the decadent, playboyish secret identity of Batman. Thus it might seem weird that Superman doesn't come across with a bit more bravado in his superheroic guise, since he is freed of having to perform to keep his secret.



Comparisons to the Batman make me think about the way Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan presented the character in their films.

In the Burton films, Michael Keaton's Batman is an outsider. Much has been said about the relationship between the heroes of Burton's films and the oddball Burton himself, but it's interesting to note that for all of this, Burton's Batman still communicates with the people he's helping a *lot* more than the Donner/Singer Superman.

In point of fact, he *announces* himself in exactly the way Superman doesn't, for instance, during the spaceplane rescue in _Superman Returns_ - crashing in through the roof, roaring up in the Batmobile with flaming exhaust pipes. Even in _Batman Returns_, in which the Batman (almost awkwardly) retreats from Selina Kyle's attempt at conversation, there's more communication with both villains and regular folks - smirking as he waits for the big clown to notice the bomb stuffed in his waistband, reaching out verbally to Catwoman, confronting the Penguin and Max Schreck.

Part of it has to be the suite of fear and intimidation tactics the Batman relies upon to get the job done, but it's intriguing that the psychologically and emotionally isolated Batman seems to have a lot more to say to the people he meets than noble and self-sacrificing Superman. I guess it's part of their complexity as characters - the scary Batman paradoxically reaches out to others while the infinitely compassionate Superman sets himself apart.

The Nolan version of the Batman as played by Christian Bale isn't so different. He reaches out to people he needs as allies throughout the film, both before and after his transformation into the Batman. He even feels to need to reveal his plans to Rachel Dawes despite (presumably) predicting her disgusted reaction. He even takes the time to treat the kid from the Narrows with kindness, even if he doesn't say anything.



> The performance Routh gave, however, made me start to look at Superman and Clark Kent as the same person, no "secret identities" involved. IE, Clark Kent was a farm boy who grew up as an outsider due to his abilities and the need to keep them secret. His social skills should be somewhat malformed; it shouldn't be seen as an act that he is bumbling and shy around Lois Lane, who he nurtures a strong affection for- he acts that way because he truly hasn't developed the social skills of emotional interaction at that level. So he comes across that way not because he's performing, but because that's who he is. When he puts on the Superman tights, he isn't changing at all- he's still awkward Clark Kent who doesn't really know how to interact quite so socially with people. He's now in a different role from other people's perceptions, though- he's their savior and hero, and rather than see him as awkward, they become awkward because, really, how do you interact with someone on that level? So Superman ends up coming across as the cool collected one, in a complete role reversal.



I think that's pretty cogent. In the comics, it hasn't been true for quite a while that Superman is psychologically alien, and Clark Kent is the mask he wears to move in human society; this was an element of his pre-Crisis characterisation, and eloquently summarised by Bill in _Kill Bill, Volume II_, but since the _Crisis On Infinite Earths_ and the John Byrne revamp of Superman in _The Man of Steel_ Clark Kent is not a cover identity, it's the fundamental truth of who Superman is. He's more a child of the warm, loving Kents who raised him than of the cold, emotionally sterile world of Krypton, and he was even "born" on Earth since he gestated during the flight from Krypton in a "birthing matrix".

I think it's certainly true that Singer's take on Superman makes the hero and the reporter basically the same person. I think it's interesting the way that Clark takes advantage of his appeal as Superman to play "come hither" with Lois Lane; by contrast, in _Lois and Clark_ my memories suggest that Clark played it "strictly business" when he wore the tights and only pursued Lois as Clark Kent. Perhaps this simply reflects a differing take on Clark Kent's attitude to letting Lois in on his secret: in _Lois and Clark_ he only revealed his powers to Lois once they were already together (or nearly so), while in the Donner/Singer version he appears happy to romance Lois *as Superman* and presumably let her in on the secret once they were together in that context.

It's a complicating element of the Singer film that we don't know the circumstances in which "Jason-El" was conceived, because whether or not the memory-erasing kiss is canon for _Superman Returns_ is important to the question of who, exactly, Lois believed she was sleeping with when she got pregnant: "I Spent The Night With Superman" indeed. Her lack of surprise and willingness to ask Jason to help them get out of the galley after the piano incident suggests that she was at least half-expecting Jason to be capable of such a thing; it's also fairly clear that Richard doesn't know and genuinely thinks he's the father. Hell, no wonder she resents Superman for leaving, and was happy to settle down (to a certain extent) with Richard.

It's very interesting that the most probable explanation is that Clark romanced her and slept with her as Superman. For argument's sake, compare with Clark Kent in _Smallville_: he's still psychologically as human as the Donner/Singer Superman or the comics Superman, but at least in the first three seasons it seems that his fear of the grey areas of the relationship between "Clark Kent" and "Kal-El" overrides his romantic interests, especially with Lana Lang. He can't be with her as Clark and reveal his secret, and he certainly doesn't have the option to do it the other way. In some ways, it suggests that the creation of the Superman identity for the _Smallville_ Clark Kent will be a way of interacting with society without anyone ever forcing him to deal with the issue, but for this Clark it will be explicitly as a coping mechanism as opposed to the Donner/Singer practicality.



> Contrast, then, with someone like Batman, who (IMO) really is the underlying personality, and the Bruce Wayne identity is just one that he adopts out of necessity to deal with the rest of the world. Two different characters, essentially.



Another interpretation of the Batman is that Bruce Wayne wears two different costumes to deal with the world. He becomes the Batman to accomplish his mission, striking fear into the hearts of the criminal element and destroying evil. He becomes "Bruce Wayne, billionaire playboy" to deflect suspicion as to his nocturnal activities. _Batman Begins_, I think, takes this attitude, and actually shows you the genesis of the Batman and of "Bruce Wayne, billionaire playboy".

Christian Bale's performance outside of the costume is different when he is the real Bruce Wayne, discussing his plans with Alfred, and when he is the billionaire playboy, buying hotels and persuading Lucius Fox to give him surplus experimental devices for extreme sports purposes. One of the more subtle elements of the film is the way in which he gradually reveals at least part of the real Bruce Wayne to Fox and drops the playboy charade, in contrast to the way Rachel Dawes gets to know the real Bruce Wayne through her dealings with the Batman.

Of course, it's also true that Ra's al Ghul knows the real Bruce Wayne, which is why it's never a question that he recognises the Batman for who he is. In a way it's what makes him a supremely dangerous villain for Nolan's version of the character: there's no sense that Jonathan Crane or Carmine Falcone have the capacity to figure out who the Batman really is, but Ra's is an enemy who knows Bruce Wayne as intimately as Bruce knows himself.



> BTW, Mhacdebhandia, I just wanted to say that I found this to be a really well written and insightful review. Thanks for sharing it!



Thanks for saying so.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jul 10, 2006)

Like all revisions of Icon characters...doing Supes, is by no means, easy.

Singer has stated, he had to trimmed the film down, from 2:45 hrs, to 2:34. And he was NOT asked by the major studios heads to do it, he did it on his own. I guess to bring it, to more 'comfortable' level of telling the story.

Anyway, a redone of this nature, is considered, a alpha state production.

As someone else said, yes...Singer will learn, as everyone else involved.

I like the film every much, and want to see it again. Probably at IMAX.

The only differences about the whole experience...was Brandon's voice. Quite a departure, from *Christoper's*. In the first hour, I didn't adjust to it. But on the second half, I did.

Acknowledging in my thoughts...the mantle is now passed, for good or ill. The mantle is now, been passed.

Time to look forward.

But in the background of the past...will cherish and remember with reverence...on those who carried the *S*, from before.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 10, 2006)

2nd weekend at boxoffice and dropped 58 percent, earning $21.9 million this weekend and $141.7 million in 12 days.  

Domestic:  $141,677,000    87.6% 
+ Foreign:  $20,000,000     12.4% 
---------------------------------
= Worldwide:  $161,677,000


----------



## Archetype (Jul 10, 2006)

*"Not that there's anything wrong with that...."*

Ok, did anyone else get the overall impression that Brandon Routh's Superman was, well... more _gay-looking_ than he should have been?  (And I'm not meaning this as any kind of homophobic insult at all during this post, please, but it is the main image that we all came away with from his casting.)


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 10, 2006)

Archetype said:
			
		

> Ok, did anyone else get the overall impression that Brandon Routh's Superman was, well... more _gay-looking_ than he should have been?




No. It sounds like you were more interested in making sophmoric snarky comments with your friends than actually paying attention to the movie.


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 10, 2006)

Archetype said:
			
		

> Ok, did anyone else get the overall impression that Brandon Routh's Superman was, well... more _gay-looking_ than he should have been?  (And I'm not meaning this as any kind of homophobic insult at all during this post, please, but it is the main image that we all came away with from his casting.)



Before I saw it, the first thing my best friend said to me when I asked him how the movie was is "Superman's gay now".


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 11, 2006)

*Your friendly admin here.*

This is not the place to discuss Superman's sexuality. That's a conversational thread that (judging from past experiences) will end nowhere good, and which will get this thread closed. I hope to avoid that. 

As a result, please do not pursue that line of discussion here; you're welcome to hash it out over at Circvs Maximvs, of course. 

If you wish to discuss this, feel free to email me.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 11, 2006)

I thought it would be cool if, since Superman's son was born on Earth, he only had his powers if he was near kryptonite.  Then the whole kryptonite island scene could have gone slighlty differently.  Some little kid beating up Lex, heh.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 11, 2006)

My main problem with the Super-kid is that it will infect future movies.  Instead of more slam-bang comic action we will see Clark trying to be a parent and that kind of crap.  I just don't go to a Superman movie for that kind of stuff.


----------



## Archetype (Jul 11, 2006)

The Bad Astronomer has a good review that covers a lot of the "superscience" used in the move: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/superman_returns_review.html. (Why Red Giant stars don't just explode, what they did get right with the science used, etc.)

Check out the Bunnies cliip at the end of the article (for the original _Superman_ but still pretty funny): http://www.starz.com/features/bunnyclub/superman/index.html  Heh.  I got more entertainment value out of those 30 seconds than I did for the entire loooong _Superman Returns_ experience, unfortunately...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 11, 2006)

Ah, the Bunnies. once again bringing entertainment to old stock material. Thumbs up for the bunnies!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 12, 2006)

Info about a future movie http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=20836



> Will Hollywood blockbuster budgets continue to fly "up, up and away?" Not necessarily.
> 
> At least, not at Warner Bros. Pictures. After a $225 million "Pirates of the Caribbean" sailed into port, taking the wind out of "Superman Returns'" $205 million Spandex, Warner Bros. executives are said to be circumspect as to whether the Man of Steel will fly again.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chain Lightning (Jul 13, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I was particularly disappointed that they went with the "bumbling Clark Kent."  Eventually, Lois is supposed to choose Clark over Superman.  Choose the real personality over the flashy powers.  But Reeves' Clark Kent was never the kind of man Lois _would_ fall for.  It was one of the strongest points of the _Lois and Clark_ TV series, IMO, that Clark Kent was actually a cool enough guy that you could believe Lois actually picking him over Superman.  Still wholesome and good, but with positive qualities.  Reeves' Clark just does not strike me as the kind of guy a powerful, career-oriented woman like Lois Lane is going to pick over Superman.  I was disappointed to see that Singer decided to use that interpretation, pretty much whole-turkey.Well, I did enjoy the movie.  I just wish it would have been even better.  I had hoped for a Spider-man level of quality, and wound up with an X-Men level of quality.  Good, but not great.




I'm with you on the disappointment of the Lex girlfriend and the over-all quality of the film. Was hoping to be awed.

But I disagree with your preference for Clark Kent. I happen to like geeky and timid Clark Kent version for several reasons. One reason is, it is such a big contrast to the Superman persona that it adds more credibility to his Clark disquise. We already roll our eyes with just putting on the glasses and combing the hair different thing. But posture, mannerisms, and all the other dorky things helps the audience suspend reality a bit more. Another reason.....and my main reason.....is that I like seeing non-typical things. You say you can't see someone as strong as Lois falling for a dork like Clark? Who says all intelligent, beautiful, and strong women HAVE to fall for guys that are "cool"? Sometimes girls just geet sick of the "cool" guy....sometimes they like the sweet and dependable guy...even if he is a dork. I would admire Lois more when she finally chooses Clark over Superman. Then I would see that she sees past the social awkwardness and realizes he's a good man. A girl falling the 'cool' guy isn't an accomplishment. No duh a girl would fall for someone cool. Its when someone falls for the right person is when its admirable.

That's what made Rick Hunter's journey in Robotech cool. He finally realized that the girl for him wasn't the flashy singer....but the older more homely girl next door Lisa Hayes. 

I like the dorky Clark Kent. I like seeing people in the office ignore him and not going out of their way to rub elbows with him. He's totally invisible in the office. Which makes his secret identity more credible. Better yet though....I like the irony of seeing people who would act friendly around Superman ignore Clark. I like that the most sought after bachelor in the world is walking about un-noticed by all those ladies at the Daily Planet. 
For me, its like there's a message saying....."see ladies, sometimes your Superman is right in front of you and you don't know it....."

I like that.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 13, 2006)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> That's what made Rick Hunter's journey in Robotech cool. He finally realized that the girl for him wasn't the flashy singer....but the older more homely girl next door Lisa Hayes.



100 points for the Robotech/Macross reference. I declare you the winner.

(However, I always thought Lisa Hayes was hot, so what do I know?)


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 13, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> (However, I always thought Lisa Hayes was hot, so what do I know?)




She _was_ hot.


----------



## Starman (Jul 13, 2006)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> I like that.




I do, too. But, that's 'cause we're geeks ourselves and we're holding out hope for ourselves.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Jul 13, 2006)

Starman said:
			
		

> I do, too. But, that's 'cause we're geeks ourselves and we're holding out hope for ourselves.




Ha ha ha .... exactly.....know your audience.    Also....let Bruce Wayne be the cool guy with his secret identity. Clark can be the dork. The difference will be cool when we see them onscreen together in a "I wish" World's Finest movie some day [crosses fingers].



			
				Arnwyn said:
			
		

> (However, I always thought Lisa Hayes was hot, so what do I know?)






			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> She was hot.




Ah...brings a tear to me eye. EN World....a place where people understand my obscure geeky references. *sniff* .... I love you guys....

But yes .... Lisa was *hot* . Cinnamon roll like hair at the ends.....great legs..... came up with the idea for the Daedalus Attack ........fuggadaboutit!


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 13, 2006)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> But I disagree with your preference for Clark Kent.



Fair enough.







> One reason is, it is such a big contrast to the Superman persona that it adds more credibility to his Clark disquise.



I am not claiming there's no validity to this claim, but I personally find this point unconvincing.  To strangers, sure.  The suave, confident Superman and the timid Clark Kent wouldn't be taken for the same guy.  But everyone in the Daily Planet who works with Clark would know, the moment they laid eyes on Superman.  It's like identical twins.  People who don't know them can't tell them apart.  For people who do know them, it's as easy as pie.







> We already roll our eyes with just putting on the glasses and combing the hair different thing. But posture, mannerisms, and all the other dorky things helps the audience suspend reality a bit more.



For me this doesn't help at all.  Accepting the Superman/Clark Kent disguise is an act of pure, unaided suspension of disbelief.  Nothing done is going to make it any easier.  It's patently silly regardless of what angle you look at it from.  But I accept it, because it's Superman.  As a result, it serves as poor justification for other incongruities in the mythos.







> Another reason.....and my main reason.....is that I like seeing non-typical things. You say you can't see someone as strong as Lois falling for a dork like Clark? Who says all intelligent, beautiful, and strong women HAVE to fall for guys that are "cool"? Sometimes girls just geet sick of the "cool" guy....sometimes they like the sweet and dependable guy...even if he is a dork.



But that's just _it_.  Movie Clark isn't a dependable guy.  He is basically _never_ there when Lois needs him, so that Superman can be.  He's also not sweet, at least not from what I saw in the movie.  Unless Lois just happens to find clutzes sweet, in which case she's going to be disappointed when she discovers that his clutziness is an _act_.

It's the difference between Ray Barone from _Everybody Loves Raymond_ and Doug Heffernan from _King of Queens_.  There are absolutely no redeeming qualities about Ray Barone in _Raymond_.  He's not a good father.  He's not a good husband.  He's not romantic, or smart, or anything.  It is inconceivable to me why his wife or indeed any woman, would love him.

Contrast that to Doug.  He's not the greatest catch either.  But you can see that he's a good man often trying to do the right thing, that he loves his wife, and tries hard.  He might not get every hottie's number in the bar, but you can see why a particular hottie would fall for him.

To pull this long tangent back on track, I see movie Clark Kent as another Ray Barone.  He has no redeeming qualities, and I'm supposed to accept that Lois will prefer him to Superman, who has a lot of redeeming qualities, even if they're superficial ones.

The _Lois and Clark_ Clark Kent was different.  Sure, he was a country boy and not as sophisticated as Lois might like.  But he he _was_ a sweet and (mostly) dependable guy.  It made sense that, although Superman has all the super-powers, she'd fall in love with that sweet and dependable guy.







> I would admire Lois more when she finally chooses Clark over Superman. Then I would see that she sees past the social awkwardness and realizes he's a good man.



A question for you.  Do you believe that Clark is actually physically clumsy.  Do you believe that the Clark Kent persona is, like others in the thread have posited, the "true" persona?  Or do you believe it's an act, meant to throw off suspicion that they are one and the same individual?







> That's what made Rick Hunter's journey in Robotech cool. He finally realized that the girl for him wasn't the flashy singer....but the older more homely girl next door Lisa Hayes.



I imagine that two things hold true (though I haven't seen Robotech in twenty years, so I couldn't say.)  1. That Lisa was honest and not creating a false persona for Rick.  And 2. that Lisa had some redeeming qualities.

Both of these aspects are lacking, for me, in the movie Clark.  



> I like the dorky Clark Kent. I like seeing people in the office ignore him and not going out of their way to rub elbows with him. He's totally invisible in the office. Which makes his secret identity more credible. Better yet though....I like the irony of seeing people who would act friendly around Superman ignore Clark. I like that the most sought after bachelor in the world is walking about un-noticed by all those ladies at the Daily Planet.
> For me, its like there's a message saying....."see ladies, sometimes your Superman is right in front of you and you don't know it....."



It's an interesting message, but I don't particularly want to sacrifice my belief in the relationship to sustain it.

Even in "Can't Buy Me Love" the protagonist had a lot of redeeming qualities.  We see none of that in Routh's Clark Kent.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 13, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> 1. That Lisa was honest and not creating a false persona for Rick.  And 2. that Lisa had some redeeming qualities.




I know that it could fall into 'some redeeming qualities', but I feel that there should be a #3 for: And Lisa was hot.

...sorry, had to.  

[/hijack]


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 13, 2006)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Also....let Bruce Wayne be the cool guy with his secret identity. Clark can be the dork. The difference will be cool when we see them onscreen together in a "I wish" World's Finest movie some day [crosses fingers].



I thought the Bruce Wayne secret ID was more "arrogant drunken eccentric prick" than "cool guy," personally. 

But I will cross my fingers along with you for a Superman/Batman team-up movie.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 13, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I know that it could fall into 'some redeeming qualities', but I feel that there should be a #3 for: And Lisa was hot.



But...that completely invalidates Chain Lightning's entire point in the reference.

What's to admire about a guy choosing the nice hot babe over the famous hot babe?

I mean, it'd be no better than a girl choosing the normal decent guy over the superhero decent guy...


----------



## shilsen (Jul 13, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Fair enough.I am not claiming there's no validity to this claim, but I personally find this point unconvincing.  To strangers, sure.  The suave, confident Superman and the timid Clark Kent wouldn't be taken for the same guy.  But everyone in the Daily Planet who works with Clark would know, the moment they laid eyes on Superman.  It's like identical twins.  People who don't know them can't tell them apart.  For people who do know them, it's as easy as pie. For me this doesn't help at all.  Accepting the Superman/Clark Kent disguise is an act of pure, unaided suspension of disbelief.  Nothing done is going to make it any easier.




This is a minor point that I'm going to disagree with you on. I don't recall which of the Superman movies it was, but there's a scene where Christopher Reeve does a brilliant job visually illustrating the Clark/Superman difference. 

It's a scene where he's in Lois's (Lana's?) room as Clark and planning to tell her that he's Superman. She's just stepped out of the room and he takes off his glasses and straightens up (Reeve played Clark with perpetually hunched shoulders and a slight stoop). And in that instant, even though he's still wearing Clark's suit, he just morphs into Superman. No special effects, no nothing, but you might as well have been looking at two completely different people. It was brilliantly done.

Sure, the Clark Kent disguise is partly dependent on a suspension of disbelief, but that's not all there is to it.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 14, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Sure, the Clark Kent disguise is partly dependent on a suspension of disbelief, but that's not all there is to it.



Fair enough, we can agree to disagree.  I've never met the coworker who could come to work one day wearing (or not wearing) glasses, and convince me they were somebody else.  Even when I was doing theatre work in college, I can't think of a one of them that was so good an actor that a pair of specs would be all they'd need to fool me.

I'm not saying the two personas--Clark and Supes--don't have very different mannerisms.  I'm just saying that without a pure faith suspension of disbelief, it'd be patently obvious that they were the same person, affecting different mannerisms.  At least, for people who are familiar with their features through daily exposure.

In _Spider-Man_, the Goblin/Osbourne dichotomy is a good example.  Especially in the mirror sequence, the actor did a brilliant job of giving life to two distinct personas.  But despite the fact that he has completely different mannerisms and personality, if the Goblin persona had put on a pair of specs and walked into the OsCorp board room, the board members' likely reaction would be, "Wtf?  Osbourne, have you gone bleeping crazy?"

Not even close to, "Who the heck are you?"


----------



## Archetype (Jul 14, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> It's a scene where he's in Lois's (Lana's?) room as Clark and planning to tell her that he's Superman. She's just stepped out of the room and he takes off his glasses and straightens up (Reeve played Clark with perpetually hunched shoulders and a slight stoop). And in that instant, even though he's still wearing Clark's suit, he just morphs into Superman. No special effects, no nothing, but you might as well have been looking at two completely different people. It was brilliantly done.




Yes, this is exactly what we found missing in Brandon Routh's attempt to portray the whole Clark Kent/Superman split presentation.  He was struggling to present a believable separate Clark Kent persona.  Christopher Reeve just nailed it.

It also didn't help that Routh was _way_ too young for the role.  "Casting for future sequels" only makes sense if the character works for the first movie right off the bat.  (Hmm... movie studio "meta-producing" for future profit margins instead of cinematic excellence..go figure.)  At the end of _Superman Returns_ we were referring to him as "SuperDude," since he looks like he's about to head off to a frat kegger.


----------



## Sandain (Jul 14, 2006)

Hi all,

I saw the movie but do not know much about Supermans powers.  The actor looked like an air brushed male model out of a magazine - but then i started thinking.  he grew up from a child - so his bones, muscles, hair etc all grow.

Would he ever get wrinkles?
Does he grow facial hair?
Does the hair on his head ever need cutting?
Could you cut his hair and nails?
Will he die of old age?
Does he feel things? like did he feel that needle even though it couldnt penetrate his skin?

How did his suit not burn up during re-entry?
How does he hide the suit and cape under his clothes?

I hope someone can answer!


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 14, 2006)

Sandain said:
			
		

> Would he ever get wrinkles?



It depends on the interpretation.  In _Kingdom Come_, an older Superman looks older, complete with graying hair.  I seem to recall that the older Superman in Frank Miller's _Dark Knight Returns_ looked pretty much the same as always.







> Does he grow facial hair?



Yes.  _Lois and Clark_ introduced the idea of Superman shaving with his own heat-vision coupled with a mirror, which I believe the comic later adopted.







> Does the hair on his head ever need cutting?
> Could you cut his hair and nails?



Yes, and yes.







> Will he die of old age?



I couldn't say for certain, but my impression has been, from the various far-future comics that I've read, is that Kryptonians age and die, but that their lifespans are much longer than a human being's.







> Does he feel things? like did he feel that needle even though it couldnt penetrate his skin?



He can certainly feel touch.







> How did his suit not burn up during re-entry?



I've heard two answer to that one.  1. That Superman's costume, sewn from his infant swaddling cloth, is Kryptonian and therefore extremely tough.  And 2. that Superman's invulnerability is actually the result of a force-field that only extends a centimeter or so from his body.  Hence, his clothing becomes invulnerable while he's wearing it.

I'm not sure which of these two answers applies to the current version of Supes, since I don't keep up with the comic these days.  Or whether that answer applies to the movie Supes.







> How does he hide the suit and cape under his clothes?



The suit is easy to explain.  Spandex doesn't really require much room.  Now that his cape is made of leather, though, you've got me on that one...


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 14, 2006)

Sandain said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> 
> I saw the movie but do not know much about Supermans powers.  The actor looked like an air brushed male model out of a magazine - but then i started thinking.  he grew up from a child - so his bones, muscles, hair etc all grow.
> 
> I hope someone can answer!




Those answers depend on what parts of the various Superman mythos you refer to.  What parts the movie uses and doesn't use are up in the air. I'll give answers as I know them from the comics.



> Would he ever get wrinkles?
> Will he die of old age?




Yes, he does age but it seems slower and slower as he gets older. Depending on the comic, he'll probably start to go grey in a couple generations. The yellow sun radiation seems to strengthen him as time goes on. In the DC One Million series, the original Superman is still around, I think, in the year 8000+ but he's almost confined to living in the sun itself. 



> Does he grow facial hair?
> Does the hair on his head ever need cutting?
> Could you cut his hair and nails?




Yes, he grows facial hair and such just like a person. He shaves and cuts his hair with his heat vision and a mirror. 



> Does he feel things? like did he feel that needle even though it couldnt penetrate his skin?




Yes, he feels things. He feels pain, heat and all the rest but it just doesn't become incapacitating to him unless it's really dialed up high. 



> How did his suit not burn up during re-entry?




Two answers, depending on the comics.
Old Answer: The suit is made from the blankets he was wrapped in on Krypton, and it's just as invulnerable as he is.
New Answer: Superman's invulnerability extends a fraction of an inch away from his body. That's one reason he wears a skin-tight uniform but his cape gets torn.



> How does he hide the suit and cape under his clothes?




That's one of those things you just have to accept. The old answer was that the suit, in addition to being infinitely stretchable was also infinitely compressable. The new answer is, as far as I know, 'no one worries about it'.


----------



## Starman (Jul 14, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> _Lois and Clark_ introduced the idea of Superman shaving with his own heat-vision coupled with a mirror, which I believe the comic later adopted.




I thought John Byrne introduced that in his post-Crisis revamp.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jul 14, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Fair enough, we can agree to disagree.  I've never met the coworker who could come to work one day wearing (or not wearing) glasses, and convince me they were somebody else.  Even when I was doing theatre work in college, I can't think of a one of them that was so good an actor that a pair of specs would be all they'd need to fool me.




From personal experience, I have learned that a pair of glasses and a change of clothing really can fool a lot of people pretty well- not close friends or coworkers generally (at least not in close proximity and if they have anything resembling a sense of people around them), but certainly casual acquaintances. It's not quite as unbelievable as it once seemed to me that Clark could manage to pull something like this off, but yeah- to constantly pull the wool over close friends (especially investigative reporters) is hard to swallow. 

If Clark were just a regular guy living in the city and not really making much of an effort to attempt to fit in (no high profile job, as little contact with the general public as possible), I could almost buy that he could pull it off.

I think the reason the simplicity of the disguise can be as effective as it is has more to do with people's self-centeredness and less to do with it actually being able to hide ones' features. I know I've been surprised that some people don't immediately recognize me in my glasses at times- people I've worked with or known for a while. Strange.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 14, 2006)

Archetype said:
			
		

> It also didn't help that Routh was _way_ too young for the role.




Brandon Routh was the same age during filming as Christopher Reeve was when he filmed the first Superman.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 14, 2006)

Starman said:
			
		

> I thought John Byrne introduced that in his post-Crisis revamp.




Yep.  Man of Steel #4 I believe.


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 14, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> From personal experience, I have learned that a pair of glasses and a change of clothing really can fool a lot of people pretty well- not close friends or coworkers generally (at least not in close proximity and if they have anything resembling a sense of people around them), but certainly casual acquaintances. It's not quite as unbelievable as it once seemed to me that Clark could manage to pull something like this off, but yeah- to constantly pull the wool over close friends (especially investigative reporters) is hard to swallow.
> 
> If Clark were just a regular guy living in the city and not really making much of an effort to attempt to fit in (no high profile job, as little contact with the general public as possible), I could almost buy that he could pull it off.
> 
> I think the reason the simplicity of the disguise can be as effective as it is has more to do with people's self-centeredness and less to do with it actually being able to hide ones' features. I know I've been surprised that some people don't immediately recognize me in my glasses at times- people I've worked with or known for a while. Strange.



It's one of the things I've always chalked up to thinking maybe Kal el has some kind of aura that has yet to be discovered.


----------



## WanderingMonster (Jul 14, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> It's one of the things I've always chalked up to thinking maybe Kal el has some kind of aura that has yet to be discovered.




No, it's a tried and true literary conceit exploited heavily by the likes of slouches like Shakespeare.  Disguises, no matter how simple, are foolproof.  

Its all part of the package that comes along with believing that Supes gets his power from the yellow sun.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 14, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Yep.  Man of Steel #4 I believe.



Hrm, some google searching reveals that Man of Steel #4 predates Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman by seven years.

Couldn't find anything on the content of Man of Steel #4, but if there's a reference in there, then it looks like it was Hollywood borrowing from the comic at this point, rather than the other way around.

In either case, two solid reference of Supes shaving with his heat vision.


----------



## Archetype (Jul 14, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> It's one of the things I've always chalked up to thinking maybe Kal el has some kind of aura that has yet to be discovered.




Actually, this was explored in an interesting way in the comics.  Unfortunately, I can't quote exactly, since I no longer have my DC Comics collection... 

It stated something like Kryptonians have a powerful semi-psionic aura which affects those lesser mortals around them, to whatever extent the mortal could not resist it.  In Kal-el's case, when he is in "Clark Kent" disquise mode, it broadcasts a powerful hypnotic effect (through his glasses, if I remember correctly) which alters everyone's perceptions of him to conform to the "weak and unremarkable" image he wishes to project.  They _don't_ see "a 6'+ 250lb bodybuilder, wearing unsytylish glasses."  They actually percieve a slouching, wrinkled-faced, feebly thin nebbish that no one would look at twice.  And when he is in "Superman" mode, his aura is enhanced even more towards the other end of the spectrum,  making him appear more godly and impressive.  So the more his investigative reporter friends close to him were exposed to this aura the _less_ likely they were to notice any similarities, as their perceptions and mental points of reference were being influenced by being close to him each day.

There was also something else about this aura holding true to video and photographic imaging, so all the live broadcasts and pictures of "Clark Kent" presented this dumbed-down version.  It's been a long time since I read that comic, so if anyone remembers this better let us know, eh?  Thanks.

I really liked this idea, as it fits with the concept of a "god walking amonst mortals."  When Zeus came down from Olympus to frolic with the natives he didn't just put on a different toga and pretend to be something lesser.  He often had to fool his targets by using his divine power to change into someone/something else...


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 14, 2006)

Archetype said:
			
		

> There was also something else about this aura holding true to video and photographic imaging...



Sounded interesting until you got to the part about Superman's psychic powers changing the images on film.


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 14, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Sounded interesting until you got to the part about Superman's psychic powers changing the images on film.



It would make complete sense, but i'd love to see the comics do a big blow up about it to gear superman in line with common sense.


----------



## Archetype (Jul 14, 2006)

Heh.  Yes, sounds pretty hokey that way.  I wish I still had that comic, so I could confirm my memories.  Anyway it's a _comic-book logic_ explaination after all, but still better than "oh, you never really look twice at the people you see everyday" rationale, don't you think?

It does however cover a lot of the objections raised here about many plot holes in _Superman Returns._  Why did no one question how coincidental it was that Clark Kent made a reappearance the exact time that Superman did?  Because _ he didn't want them to make that connection_, so his "defensive aura" included that blank-out into the tailored emanation he projects around himself.

_"Hey, there's Clark.  Wait a minute.  Wasn't he gone for five...{ZAP}...Boy I'm hungry, we having sushi for lunch or what?"_

It also makes that embarrasingly written scene where Lois and her default boyfriend are comparing Superman's vital stats to Clark's actually work.  As they start to make a connection, he looks up at them, adjusts his glasses _(reinforcing the hypnotic command to make "no connections")_ and all of a sudden they are both...Nah! Fagettabowdit.

Now I'm not saying that Superman should have conscious control of this kind of "psychic inflluence," but merely that it is his own personal manifestation of his "Kryptonian Aura" while on Earth.  I'm sure General Zod would project an overwhelming aura of fear and superiority, since his base desires are to be worshipped and obeyed.  Superman just wants to be left alone enough to have some downtime interactions with the mortals he is spending so much effort on protecting and serving.


----------



## Someone (Jul 15, 2006)

Wasn´t Luthor supposed to be intelligent? At this point the idea I get of him is that he´s obsessed with real state and repeats the same mistake once and again. I think he had time to read the Overlord list when he was jailed.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 15, 2006)

Archetype said:
			
		

> Heh.  Yes, sounds pretty hokey that way.  I wish I still had that comic, so I could confirm my memories.  Anyway it's a _comic-book logic_ explaination after all, but still better than "oh, you never really look twice at the people you see everyday" rationale, don't you think?



Actually, no.  I am far more comfortable with the creators saying, "no, this wouldn't work in the real world, but just let it go for the movie/comic/etc." than I am with them attempting to create some kind of logic to explain the absurdity, which is itself equally absurd.  The idea of psionic powers that alter hard photographic imaging is exactly that kind of ridiculous justification.



> It does however cover a lot of the objections raised here about many plot holes in _Superman Returns._  Why did no one question how coincidental it was that Clark Kent made a reappearance the exact time that Superman did?  Because _ he didn't want them to make that connection_, so his "defensive aura" included that blank-out into the tailored emanation he projects around himself.



Sure, but to be honest, I'm more pleased without that explanation than I would be with it.  Superman already has a boatload of super-powers.  The last thing I want to do is add worldwide irresistable psionics to the pile.  Psionics that don't make a lick of sense, to boot.


----------



## Someone (Jul 15, 2006)

I don´t have a (big) problem with nobody realizing that Clark Kent is Superman. We, as audience with privileged information, have no problem connecting the dots, but otherwise:

- Why assume that Superman has a secret identity? What need would superman have of it, in the first place? He´s seen as almost a god, so it would seem somewhat idiotic that he needs to disguise as a reproter and look for a house like a normal guy, instead of living elsewhere: his spacecraft, the north pole, or the Moon.

- At least in the films, the costumed Superman appears the first time as a full adult. I don´t remember the details, but while it´s known that he comes from Kripton, there´s no reason to assume he did that as an infant and was raised here; the logical thing was to suppose he arrived in spacecraft, already fully grown. Clark, on the other hand, has a researchable life as a nomal (if maybe a bit too much healthy) human infant.

- He looks like Superman. ¿So what? Looking like someone isn´t so uncommon, and surely Clark isn´t the only one that looks like him. 

Of course, those things aren´t foolproof. He´d be discovered, sooner or later. But if I´m going to accept that he´s able to lift a kriptonite rock the size of a big city (that won´t split in half), that little fact doesn´t bother me so much.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 15, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Brandon Routh was the same age during filming as Christopher Reeve was when he filmed the first Superman.



Older, actually.

Christopher Reeve was born in September 1952; this means he was actually all of 24 years old when filming began in March 1977.

Brandon Routh was born in October 1979; filming on _Superman Returns_ began in February 2005, making him 25.


----------



## Archetype (Jul 15, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Sure, but to be honest, I'm more pleased without that explanation than I would be with it.  Superman already has a boatload of super-powers.  The last thing I want to do is add worldwide irresistable psionics to the pile.




Ok, sure.  That doesn't fit with your image of the "Classic Superman power," but that definition depends heavily on what generation of Superman fan you started out in.  Remember part of his original motto was "...able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!..."  which meant that initially he couldn't even _fly!_ (which is now taken for granted as a "Classic Superman" power).  He also didn't have the whole golfbag of powers such as "super cooling breath,"  "x-ray vision," (which I'm guessing aren't even supposed to be x-rays anymore, considering the radiation damage he would be doing to the people regulary exposed to it...  ) etc.

The point is that this character has evolved steadily, gaining a deeper definition of the powers he is supposed to have at his disposal.  (And getting many more cheesy powers thrown into the "Super Pile" along the way, of course...circling the Earth fast enough to "turn back time"?  Huh?)  Each new generation's re-interpretations tend to logically expand on what he can do, and I don't mind a better, more logical reasoning being provided.  We've heard a bunch of negative comments about him being able to pick up an entire island without it breaking up.  I believe it was in the John Byrne relaunch that it was postulated that Superman doesn't actually just "grab" something large that he has to move.  It was postulated that he actually is extending his "Kryptonian Aura" around it in order to encompass such a huge mass, thus allowing him to manipulate it....telekinetically!  (Although his own personal mental image limitations doesn't just allow him to just look at something with his mind and "tk-lift" it.  He hasn't reached that point of realization about himself...yet.)

I actually really like this kind of "re-imagining" when it is done well.  It also opens up new vistas for the character to explore, making him worth reading about/viewing in the future.  After all, how many more movies/comics do we really want to spend the time on where Superman just "super-punches" the same lame "super-villain" over and over?   This was one of the worst disappointments about Bryan Singer's _Superman Returns_ effort: the lame recyling of plot elements which explore Superman's efforts to use his powers "for good,"  the exact same way they were used in the 70's!  Stopping a _bank robber_ (just sooped up with more firepower)?  His main adversary in planning a _real-estate scam_?  Come on!  Isn't there any creative juice left in Hollywood at all?

When the Brandon Routh Superman is hovering in orbit over the Earth, listening in on all the chaos, destruction and simple messiness of human life I kept thinking: "Yes!  They are going to have a Superman that can _make a difference_ in today's world, one who comprehends how to apply his vast powers in order to guide and lead his adopted planet towards a better future.  This is going to be an important message about HOPE at last!   What?  He hears...not the cries of war and starvation, flood and famine,  injustice and prejudice...but that a corporate bank is about to lose money and have it's profit margin slightly lowered! "  Lame. Lame. Lame.


----------



## Archetype (Jul 15, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Brandon Routh was the same age during filming as Christopher Reeve was when he filmed the first Superman.




It wasn't the actor's physical age that was our objection.  Yes, Christopher Reeve was around the same age as Routh, but he obviously had much more acting experience by that time in his life, which made a huge difference.   If Routh could have pulled off the actual character he was supposed to have been portraying, Super_man_, then he would have been fine.  Instead, we got "SuperDude,"  and angsty, brooding whining teenager, who has not yet found his place in the world, has "girlfriend troubles,"  and is acting much more like an "X-Men"/Marvel Universe character than the role model he should be.  He is just too _young-looking_ for who he is supposed to be, and this carries over into his performance.

Superman should be the "confident, powerful _man_ of action," able and willing to stand up for what he believes is right.  He is basically DC's ultimate "Paladin" character.  He has great power, but it is limited by his ethical code.  Even so, he is not hesitant in doing what has to be done, seeking out injustice and tyranny, fighting the good fight, yadda yadda yadda.  If we want self-absorbed brooding and moral impasses, we have Spider-man.  If we want someone who is willing to use criminal behavior to fight crime, we have Batman.  Superman should stand for something different, and he should be set apart from other characters in that he is experienced and capable in his relationship with the universe,  knowing how to balance his desires and responsibilities. 

In other words, he is supposed to be written as a man.

Not a boy, searching for a path, but a man who is already walking the path he knows to be righteous.

That's what was missing from this "re-imagining" attempt (if you can even call it that..."recycled for profit" is more what it turned out to be).


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 15, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Actually, no.  I am far more comfortable with the creators saying, "no, this wouldn't work in the real world, but just let it go for the movie/comic/etc." than I am with them attempting to create some kind of logic to explain the absurdity, which is itself equally absurd.  The idea of psionic powers that alter hard photographic imaging is exactly that kind of ridiculous justification.
> 
> Sure, but to be honest, I'm more pleased without that explanation than I would be with it.  Superman already has a boatload of super-powers.  The last thing I want to do is add worldwide irresistable psionics to the pile.  Psionics that don't make a lick of sense, to boot.



???

And the yelllow sun bit is great science?  The psionic thing is in line with what DC has introduced with other characters powers. It would make complete since given the histor they've previous mentioned.  How can you take someone as intelligent as lex luther seriously if he can't figure out what someone looks like with their glasses off.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Jul 15, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Movie Clark isn't a dependable guy.  He is basically _never_ there when Lois needs him, so that Superman can be.  He's also not sweet, at least not from what I saw in the movie.  Unless Lois just happens to find clutzes sweet, in which case she's going to be disappointed when she discovers that his clutziness is an _act_.




I see where you're coming from. But just to clarify, are we talking about all movie Clarks? Or just the latest "Returns" Clark?

If we're just talking about the latest Clark, Routh's Clark hasn't had a chance to prove whether he's dependable or not dependable because his Clark and Bosworth's Lois don't have any type of relationship. Donnor's Lois and Clark were closer friends than what we see in "Returns". Here, Lois sees Clark as just another person in the bullpen along with the other reporters (the dorky one at that). He's just a friendly co-worker. There's never been an instance where he let down Lois because of something he failed to do for her because she never asked or was in a position to be "needed" from Clark. So we can't really judge the dependability of "Returns" Clark. We just assume he'd be a dependable guy once Lois picks him. Plus....the whole leaving her to be Superman thing is possibly invalid because most version of Clark and Lois "getting together" involve Clark revealing his true identity.

Also, the "Returns" Clark isn't a klutz. Sure, he accidently bumps Jimmy's desk causing his camera to fall. But he also caught it. That's the only klutz thing he did in the whole movie.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> It's the difference between Ray Barone from _Everybody Loves Raymond_ and Doug Heffernan from _King of Queens_.  There are absolutely no redeeming qualities about Ray Barone in _Raymond_.  He's not a good father.  He's not a good husband.  He's not romantic, or smart, or anything.  It is inconceivable to me why his wife or indeed any woman, would love him.




I like your analogy here. But Clark is a sweet guy. He's always saying nice things to her. But from her point of view....its just the dorky guy in the office clumsily trying to hit on her. So she ignores it all.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> To pull this long tangent back on track, I see movie Clark Kent as another Ray Barone.  He has no redeeming qualities, and I'm supposed to accept that Lois will prefer him to Superman, who has a lot of redeeming qualities, even if they're superficial ones.




Of course its more realistic to pick Superman over Clark. But that's assuming that both Clark and Superman are offering themselves to Lois. You gotta remember, most pre-sexual relationship Lois courting is only coming from Clark. 

The reason why I like the idea of Lois picking Clark over Superman is because it would show that Lois has given up her pie-in-the-sky dream of hooking up with a god to something more down-to-earth. Clark.  I like the idea or the message that shows the audience that you can be rewarded for not going after Mr. or Ms. Perfect.

True, once Lois picks Clark she gets the real Superman. But if a real world girl picks a dork, he won't turn out to be Superman. That's true....it's the real world after all. But if we look at it as a metaphor, then we see how that meaning can translate to real life.




			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Even in "Can't Buy Me Love" the protagonist had a lot of redeeming qualities.  We see none of that in Routh's Clark Kent.




Well, quite frankly....he never got a chance. In this movie, Lois has two men in her life already. Richard and Superman. Clark has no meaningful relationship (other than co-worker) with Lois and not much screen time. 



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And Lisa was hot.






			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> But...that completely invalidates Chain Lightning's entire point in the reference.




I think Ankh is thinking the same way I'm thinking with Lisa. She's hot not because she's flashy. She's hot because she's not. Her being homely, understated, intelligent, etc,  is the source of her hotness. Not the things most dim guys would go for: big boobs, great hair, great fashion, subservient personality......



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I'm just saying that without a pure faith suspension of disbelief, it'd be patently obvious that they were the same person, affecting different mannerisms. At least, for people who are familiar with their features through daily exposure.




I totally agree. It does need the full suspension of disbelief to work. Even with changing body language and other mannerisms .....it still wouldn't work. But the reason why I brought it up was .....not really to say it would work in real life and not to say it would excuse the leap in logic, but as a factor to "aid" those on the fence to stepping over to the zone of suspension.  Many people have different criteria for suspending disbelief. I was just saying that for those who simply won't suspend by reason of "its a Superman movie" alone....perhaps the change in mannerism and personality helps them do that.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I thought the Bruce Wayne secret ID was more "arrogant drunken eccentric prick" than "cool guy," personally.




To some girls...that's the same thing.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 16, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> - Why assume that Superman has a secret identity? What need would superman have of it, in the first place? He´s seen as almost a god, so it would seem somewhat idiotic that he needs to disguise as a reproter and look for a house like a normal guy, instead of living elsewhere: his spacecraft, the north pole, or the Moon.




That was used in the comics, in the early days of the Byrne revamp. Luthor hires this brilliant researcher to find out all she can about Superman, so that he can find out how to get rid of him. In due time she discovers he's Clark Kent and reports that with all her other findings to Luthor. Luthor throws her out on her butt and destroys her research on the basis that he thinks she's an idiot: nobody with Superman's power would ever disquise himself as a normal person and desire a normal life.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 16, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Sure, but to be honest, I'm more pleased without that explanation than I would be with it.  Superman already has a boatload of super-powers.  The last thing I want to do is add worldwide irresistable psionics to the pile.  Psionics that don't make a lick of sense, to boot.




This explanation was quietly dropped sometime later  You get that a lot in comics, where someone will come up with what they think is a cool idea and incorporate it into the mythos only to see it dropped later on. No need for a Crisis or anything; it just gets ignored or some other explanation is found. Similarly, there was an issue of Flash that retconned his origin into an alien's meddling or something; that was also quietly dropped and never referred to again.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 26, 2006)

Just came back from it.

Almost cried.

Twice.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 27, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Just came back from it.
> 
> Almost cried.
> 
> Twice.



 Care to share which points in the film they were?


----------



## Klaus (Jul 27, 2006)

I got very moved when the credits began rolling, but the eyes teared up when Superman landed the plane on the baseball field and the crowd just began cheering. The way Brandon Routh portrayed that, the overwhelming welcome of a crowd he felt no longer needed him, that really moved me.

The other time was when they showed the crowd standing outside the hospital, and the eyes kept misty throughout the scenes of Martha standing outside the hospital, unable to reach her son, and of Superman standing next to his son's bed. I think this scene resonated with me because of my 1.5-year-old son.

There is something powerful about Superman suddenly realizing that he's NOT alone in the universe. I am eager to find how they'll resolve the Superman/Clark/Lois/Richard/Jason thing. Richard is obviously a nice guy, so that makes it specially hard. But think about how hard it'll be for Martha when she finds out she has a grandson she can't come close to!

And one thing about James Marsden: he was vindicated of how badly he was treated as Cyclops. Now I want to see him as Hal Jordan, ASAP!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 2, 2006)

I wanted to see Cars last night, but missed it, so I thought "I'll see superman returns instead".

I so wish I hadn't. 

This is the most boring movie that I've seen since Star Trek III (which was the last time I found myself looking at my watch in the cinema).

Extended scenes of superman flying with music in the background just don't cut it for me.

I'd never guess that this was the same director who was behind Xmen1.

I liked the kids cameraphone photos matching the early comic covers, and bullets bouncing off of supermans chest, but everything else was a huge yawn for me.

I'd give it a 1 out of 10.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 2, 2006)

I agree.  There were some good scenes but as a movie it was very lacking.  Bad script and too long.

Now I totally disagree on Star Trek III....


----------



## Squire James (Aug 3, 2006)

I suppose you can only understand this joke if you know the intracacies of the original DC Superheroes RPG, where "normal human" ability scores were around 2-4, and each +1 to a score or power was supposedly a doubling in power.

So (post-Crisis) Superman has a Strength score of 25, which is several million times normal human strength.  But that was not his highest score.  Superman's Glasses had the highest power score of anything listed in the game... Disguise 80...


----------



## iwatt (Aug 3, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I got very moved when the credits began rolling, but the eyes teared up when Superman landed the plane on the baseball field and the crowd just began cheering. The way Brandon Routh portrayed that, the overwhelming welcome of a crowd he felt no longer needed him, that really moved me.




I loved the opening credits. The revamped John Williams soundtrack was the biggest part of it for me. Is it just me or did they use a lot more brass in this version?

And I really loved the landing scene. I felt like standing up and cheering as well.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 18, 2006)

I didn't find the movie bad. Though I am also not entirely sold, unlike I was with X-Men or Spiderman.

I just wonder about the kid: I got the impression (but I am not certain) that he became stronger _near_ Kryptonite, instead of weaker. His direct reactions were to short to be sure, but it might be noticable that he threw the Piano after he was exposed to the Kryptonite and that his asthma didn't show during the encounter with the Kryptonite. 

It would also make sense - if he really was Supermans son and shared his powers, how could he be so fragile? Unless something is considerably different.



			
				Archetype said:
			
		

> There was also something else about this aura holding true to video and photographic imaging, so all the live broadcasts and pictures of "Clark Kent" presented this dumbed-down version.  It's been a long time since I read that comic, so if anyone remembers this better let us know, eh?  Thanks.



Actually, I think it would make sense (and be consistent with what we "see" from Superman) that the psionic aura doesn't work on video or photographic imaging. 
There will never be a scene where Clark and Superman are in the same picture, so there is little risk that someone happens to compare their looks. If someone has a picture of Clark and Superman, he might get some suspicions, but would probably think more of a bad quality of the photo. Once he meets one of them in person, the psychic aura would probably silence the suspicions again (especially since both pictures wouldn't match up to the percieved Clark/Superman).


----------

