Short answer: It was a film that surpassed the quality of the script, making up with special effects and human drama what it lacked in coherent plot.
Longer answer below, with spoilers (sorry, couldn't be helped.):
I’ve always been a firm believer in judging various creative works for themselves, rather than comparing them to previous works. The problem in this case is that Superman Returns screams for exactly that sort of comparison. Basically it’s a sequel to Superman: The Movie and Superman II, and it places itself against its predecessors every chance it gets. From repeated music to repeated shots to repeated dialogue, it cries out to be held up next to what went before, unlike “Batman Begins” and that movie’s determination to create a film with a totally different atmosphere from the Burton or (God help us) Schumacher incarnations. The simple fact is that, without the first two Superman films, there is no “Superman Returns.”
So let’s compare them—
Scripts: Let’s face it, neither of them were Pulitzer or even Oscar material. “Superman Returns” has holes you could drive Krypton through. (1) Superman’s departure without a word of explanation to Lois cannot be excused by the concept that he just found it too hard to say good-bye. His unexplained absence was simply cruel. For that matter, why wasn’t she worried about his safety? Contrast the genuinely human reaction of Sarah Jane Smith in “School Reunion” who, after encountering the Doctor after thirty years absence, at first is overjoyed and then cries in an accusing fashion, “I thought you died!” Not Lois, no. She writes a rage-fueled essay about why the world doesn’t need Superman. She acted like a woman who knew she was unceremoniously dumped, but she couldn’t actually have known it. So not accepting the basic premise is something of a problem for me. (2) Luthor’s plan is unclear and confusing. It threatens to cause a tidal wave that would swamp Metropolis, but it never does. Menacing the world, he creates an environment that protects him from Superman. Swell. But there’s nothing protecting him from, say, 500-pound bombs. Or the 82nd Airborne. The notion is that the world will want to do business with him. I’m thinking not. I’m thinking they see him as a threat and act accordingly. (3) I know it’s always been a conceit that the intrepid reporters of the Daily Planet are too stupid to connect Clark and Superman, but c’mon. Clark goes away, Superman goes away. Clark comes back, Superman comes back. There’s stupid and then there’s moronic.
On the other hand, there was nothing truly wince worthy. The film didn’t crash to a halt while Lois Lane recited poetry. There was no WTF moment such as Superman reversing the world or sucking Lois’ memory out of her head through her mouth…in other words, a sequence that erased the necessity of some large chunk of the movie. There was no Otis. The filmmakers trusted the material, as opposed to the original film where it often seemed they didn’t.
“SUPER”ior script: “Superman Returns”
Director: Richard Donner basically made a breakthrough film. It was the first time there had been any serious treatment (at least for the first hour) of a comic book superhero. And what treatment! The screenplay by Mario Puzo gave Superman a sense of scope on par with a biblical epic, and Donner came through. The problem was that Donner made no effort to meld the tone of Puzo’s work with that of the so-campy-you-wondered-where-Adam-West-was work of the three other screenwriters. Consequently, the tone of the film lurches wildly. You can sense it skid off the rails the moment Ned Beatty shows up. The human and heroic elements of the Superman storyline jar wildly with the campy Lex Luthor material.
At least Singer keeps a much firmer hand on his tale. It doesn’t hang together, but at least it’s consistent. We don’t go from high-heroics to high-camp, and the bit where Superman gets the crap kicked out of him by Luthor’s goons is quite possibly the most heart-wrenching sequence ever depicted in a superhero film, surpassing even the death of Uncle Ben. People in the audience was gasping, groaning, even looking away because it was so brutal. Plus there’s all the aforementioned winks and nods to the original (Lois fainting after being rescued and still unable to spell; Glenn Ford’s photograph on the mantle in the Kent home; an extended sequence where Luthor watches a miniature city get shaken to bits was probably a nod to Superman: The Movie where very obvious models were used for the earthquake sequence, as if to say, “Watch: We’re going to do better than this.") And if Donner dropped hints as to Messianic intent (“And so I give them you…my only son”) Singer drops anvils (Superman drifting helpless and unconscious in a classic crucifixion pose—dying for our sins, presumably, the sin being lack of faith in our “savior”…and, yes, there’s even a resurrection. Plus I loved the Aquaman pajamas, which had nothing to do with anything, but I want me a pair.) He’s even sly enough to re-create the cover to Action Comics #1 as Superman hefts a car over his head.
So, even though we must acknowledge Donner’s breakthrough work, just for the quality of the final product, SUPERior director: Bryan Singer.
Brandon Routh: I did not come out of Superman the Movie thinking that a man could fly. I did, however, believe that a man could fool people into thinking he was two different guys using basically skilled acting and a pair of glasses.
Not so Routh. His Superman is…competent. Decent. Classically handsome, strong jawed, looks great in tights. But in order to be Superman, he needs the tights, the cape, the spitcurl and the special effects.
Chris Reeve, by contrast, could be Superman by simply removing his Clark Kent glasses, straightening his back, deepening his voice, and saying, “Lois…there’s something I have to tell you.” Yes, his Clark was over-the-top, but let’s face it, so is wearing blue and red tights with your underwear on the outside. Reeve’s Superman radiated charisma, power, and a sense of humor. Routh’s Superman, when he’s not juggling real estate or planes, is so low-key he’s almost subliminal. Actually, he’s so low-key he’s almost Clark, glasses or no. He holds our interest without quite piquing it.
SUPERior Superman: Chris Reeve.
Lois Lane: Boy, this one’s a toughie. The problem stems from the fact that Lois is in such two radically different points in her life. Margot Kidder was all throaty wonderment and discovery as she encountered Superman for the first time and fell in love with him. It was all so charming. Kate Bosworth isn’t charming. She’s a mother, she’s in another relationship, she’s got no sense of closure, she’s bitter. There’s a glorious irony in that Kidder’s Lois Lane dreamt of Superman and of winning the Pulitzer Prize, whereas Bosworth’s Lois Lane still nurses anger and is winning the Pulitzer prize for shattering her own dreams of Superman. Some people have also complained that Bosworth is a bit callow to play Lois, especially considering that five years have passed. Bosworth is 23 and looks it. However, despite her youth, I believe her more as a reporter than I did Margot Kidder. But I believe Margot Kidder as Lois Lane more than I do Kate Bosworth.
SUPERior Lois: Tie.
Luthor: Despite the comic opera aspects of the original Luthor, Hackman somehow came across as more menacing. Perhaps that’s because there was a wider contrast in his activities. As much as I feel the comedic nonsense and camp aspects hurt the film, they did serve to set up the chilling moments such as Luthor’s calm response to Superman’s outraged demand, “Is this how a twisted mind like yours get its kicks? By planning the deaths of millions of innocent people?” (“No. By causing the deaths of millions of innocent people.”) and his subsequent advancing on Superman with Kryptonite. But Spacey owes his success as Luthor to the more consistent overall tone of the script and film. The sequence where Kitty freaks out on him upon discovering that he deliberately placed her in harm’s way and he cold-bloodedly explains his reasoning is truly marvelous. Plus, bottom line, Hackman was unwilling to embrace the Luthor trademark of baldness while Spacey happily shaved his head. They were both great, but bottom line, I have to say…
SUPERior Lex: Kevin Spacey, by a hair (or lack thereof).
Luthor’s floozy: They basically both go through the same character arc: They come to appreciate the greatness that is Superman and wind up undercutting Lex’s plan, earning his wrath. The difference is that Parker Posey doesn’t look like she knows why she’s there much of the time, whereas Valerie Perrine is…well, she’s Valerie Perrine, for God’s sake. The sex goddess of my youth.
SUPERior Floozy: Valerie Perrine.
Music: This isn’t even close. There isn’t a note of memorable score in Superman Returns that wasn’t lifted from John Williams.
SUPERior Score: Superman: The Movie.
So basically, in terms of the one-to-one comparisons, it’s a dead heat. That leaves us with the things that don’t match up exactly, and in those, I have to say, Superman Returns leaves its predecessor in the dust. Contrast the absence of someone as over-the-top as Otis with the presence of Richard White, whom Singer wisely chooses to portray—not as a schmuck—but a heroic individual whom Lois could easily fall in love with. Yes, he’s not Superman…but he doesn’t have to be. Consider the far better use of cameos: Noel Neill and Kirk Allyn, the original serial Lois and Clark, had their brief cameo whittled nearly into non-existence in Superman the Movie. Here Noel actually gets to act as the dying old woman in the beginning, and Jack Larson—the TV series Jimmy Olsen—gets a nice sized scene as Bo the bartender. Then there’s the matter of Lois’ son. I mean, let’s face it, with all his physical frailty, the writers tried too hard. They went overboard trying to convince us that Jason’s father isn’t who we all knew he was before seeing a single frame of the film. (Although it sets up an interesting conundrum: Presuming he was conceived during Clark and Lois’ assignation in the Fortress—an involvement that Lois would now have no recollection of—basically his presence is the equivalent of an immaculate conception from Lois’ point of view.) Nevertheless, the young actor does a marvelous job, the timing of the reveal is nicely done, and the scene toward the end with Superman and the sleeping Jason is, quite simply, the best Superman scene ever committed to film.
Overall, then, kudos to the movie makers. They’ve outdone that which they modeled their film on.
Now about that Superman/Batman crossover…
PAD
This review is more or less accurate.
More more than less of course.
"the intrepid reporters of the Daily Planet are too stupid to connect Clark and Superman, but c’mon. Clark goes away, Superman goes away. Clark comes back, Superman comes back. There’s stupid and then there’s moronic."
Superman dies and lies in a hospital bed. Clark vanished the second Lois sent her SOS. Clark never came back throughout the entire movie.
Then again, the intrepid reporters are morons. "'they're coordinates!'" Gee! Ya think! Having learned about latitude and longitude in a class in junior high makes me think coordinates are obvious and these old, supposedly learned professionals really aren't that well-educated.
I like continuity. I don't like to be buried in it... the repeated title sequence, the repeated score, the repeated lines (From Brando and Routh), the repeated character arcs, the repeated points of view (Jimmy's camera). I got the sense that Routh was playing Reeve playing Kent playing Superman...
Some continuity WAS nice - Luthor's obsession with land (California in the first movie, his request for Zod to name him King of Australia in the second) was nicely explained, and continued in this film.
As far as the Christ imagery - Superman is already an icon, I thought heaping an Icon on top of an icon was too much.
I didn't like Superman's constant(!) spying on Lois and her family, and sneaking into Jason's bedroom was downright creepy.
Five years to be away seemed like a long time, but maybe not long enough - I couldn't buy that Jason was only 5 years old.
Given that Superman saved the west coast from an earthquake, foiled numerous robberies, saved the Eiffel Tower, stopped the Zone criminals (Dayenu?), I can't see how anyone on the planet (or at the Planet) would buy the notion that the world doesn't need a Superman. Nevermind a Pulitzer.
Music: This isn’t even close. There isn’t a note of memorable score in Superman Returns that wasn’t lifted from John Williams.
Amen. This past Tuesday when I first heard The Theme in the theater for the first time in nearly 20 years . . . I swear it was like adulthood never happened.
Maybe, in the next movie, there will be some explanations for why Superman left without saying goodbye. The fact is, though, that he's been absent from the screen for nearly two decades, so I felt it was fair to have his absence addressed in the movie. It's obvious to me that they chose to have him leave 5 years ago, because of what happened 5 years ago.
9-11 was clearly on Singer's mind, and it was on my mind, too, when Superman melted all the falling debris from the rooftops in that one sequence near the end.
In my imaginations, Superman found out about the possibility of there being remnants of Krypton in space (Argo City, perhaps?), so he began work on his revamped spacecraft, and started getting ready for his trip. Part of this would have entailed him tying up loose ends as Clark, so - in order for him to create a good cover story in terms of his departure - I think it would have been logical for him to linger at the Daily Planet for a longer period than Superman's presumed departure. In other words, if he worked at the Daily Planet for 6 months or so after Superman's last appearance, (or even vice versa, really) then people wouldn't connect the disappearance of the two. In the old comics, weren't there some stories where it was explained that, when he was Clark, Superman would modify his height and even his facial structure, so he wouldn't look exactly the same all the time? I try not to let that bother me.
However, Clark's identity SHOULD be a problem in this age of security cameras, cameraphones, and tabloid TV. SOMEONE should get a shot of Clark publicly changing into his Superman costume in at least one of the upcoming sequels, if there are to be any.
As far as the Kryptonian landscape, I didn't think it had finished "baking" yet, and I assumed Lex knew more than was revealed. After all, he asked Jor-El to tell him "everything." This could also be explained in the next movie.
I happily look forward to the future.
I thought it should have ended with Clark telling Lois the truth. But I suppose they need to build up a Lois-Clark relationship first.
And honestly, we don't know what Lois wound up forgetting at the end of Superman II. It may just have been that Superman = Clark. She may still know that she slept with him. But I forget, did that happen before or after he got de-powered?
The first scene between Hackman's Luthor & Zod in the Oval Office will always be gold for me. Masterfully written-- even more masterfully acted. Tired of your boss and how you're treated at work? Analyze that scene. If you can master the same amount of guts & brains (and belief in yourself) that Hackman oozed in that scene-- you will never, ever be taken advantage of or be put upon again. It's that epic. And Yes, I am ascribing a life changing moment to a Superman film.
I thought it was an excellent successor to Superman: The Movie and Superman II. Definitely, there were plot holes, but the story moved along, and I was able to ignore them as much as I'm able to ignore everything that you have to ignore just to take Superman seriously at all. The credits sequence definitely helped me get in that mood. Honestly, when I left the theater I almost felt like it wasn't enough, but after thinking about it more, I realized that the movie was enough, but I just wanted more of it. I can't wait for deleted scenes on DVD and whatever they're going to make of the kid (Superboy?) in the sequel. And, of course, whether the villains will be Luthor and the Phantom Zone villains, or Luthor and Brainiac.
She may still know that she slept with him. But I forget, did that happen before or after he got de-powered?
After.
It's pretty clear that Superman wiped away Lois's entire memory of Superman II ("What's been going on in the world?") and therefore her relationship with him. So she wasn't "dumped," since as far as she knew there was no relationship. So, to me, the way she reacted seemed to be in keeping with a woman who thought she had a special connection with him (as seen in the first movie), but didn't know him that well.
Of course, this brings up the problem of why she didn't say anything when she realized he fathered her son. "Wait, I never slept with him... did I?" Kind of brings up a whole nest of ethical issues. Or maybe she does remember. Who knows? It's not really an issue for me.
I loved the movie, by the way. This is a great year for superhero movies, as I think this and X:Men: The Last Stand are the two best superhero movies ever made.
But why does everyone keep referring to the first movie as "Superman: The Movie?" You realize that's not actually the title, right? It's just Superman.
Oh, and as much as I love Valerie Perrine, nobody beats Parker Posey. Because Parker Posey is God.
Robert, I just pulled the DVD off the shelf and sure enough, it says Superman: The Movie with 'the movie' in the same sparkly logo. So I'm gonna go with that. I would also heartily recommend the DVD commentary by Donner and writer Tom Mankiewicz who did a lot of the script doctoring on the film but for WGA reasons I believe, is listed as 'creative consultant.' There are tons of great stories about the making of the film, my favorite being the first meeting with Brando, where he tried to convince them that since Joe-El was an alien, he could look like just about anything- until the filmmakers realized he was just f***ing with them.
PAD, you forgot to mention Frank Langella as Perry White. I though he was quite good and far more subdued than Jackie Cooper. Jackie Cooper, while lovable, was too cigar-chomping grouchy and over-the-top. Langella added a sort of Ben Bradley-esque gravitas as an editor of a major newspaper.
In the back of my head, while watching the second half, I kept thinking, "Wouldn't a World's Finest movie with Christian Bale's Batman be bitchin' right now?!"
Loved the black-humored line, "Wasn't there two of them?"
Apparently in the original, and in the novelization, Clark thought he'd only be gone for a few months but was blown off course. A single line mentioning that would have done wonders for this movie.
Or, better, if he hadn't known how long he was gone until he got back. Then we'd get to see the horror in his eyes when he realized what he'd lost, instead of thinking he was a callous dick who deserved to see Lois with someone else.
X-3 one of the best hero movies? You gotta be kidding.
By the way, the name of the first movie was "Superman: The Movie".
I agree, Chris. Especially with the realities of relativistic space travel. It would have been great if he thought he was only gone 6 months, or 1 year, to then realize how long his trip had actually taken.
Anyone else with me in the idea that Natalie Portman would have been a kickin' Lois?
Superman was good, but I still think the best part of the movie was the Spider-Man 3 Trailer. :P
Bud was right about this movie being influenced by 9-11. I thought of 9-11 when the police and EMT rescued Superman. Some people think Singer is ripping off the scene in Spidey 2 where the citizens help Spidey after the train sequence. I don't think that's the case, even though that scene in Spidey did have some Jesus imagery. That was Raimi paying tribute to the people of New York, like in the first film.
Overall, I liked the movie, but the Superman-Lois relationship felt muddled, and there was no payoff with Superman and Lex at the end. This is the first time a retcon was attempted in a comic book film and it took a lot of guts (I discount Batman Begins. That was a complete reboot.). Could you imagine Lucas making Episode I as much like Episode IV as possible(Actually, I'm beginning to wish he did just that)?
Good review, Peter. You even pointed out some plot holes that I hadn’t considered when watching the film. Me, I thought it was an average movie. Too long, overpadded, unoriginal and cliché.
I’m amazed that X-Men: The Last Stand, which I think was a pretty good continuation of that franchise, got so much uneven critical reaction, while this overhyped, mediocre film is getting so much positive buzz. I find it ironic that I was worried about whether The Last Stand would be any good without Singer, and all but assured that Superman Returns would be great, when the former turned to be really good, and the latter not so much. The New York Daily News gives this film four stars. The reviewer for the New York Post claims that Superman Returns is “dark without resorting to the dimestore psychology of the overrated Batman Begins.” Well, to each his own, but I thought that the psychological aspects of BB were well-founded, and that that film was well-rated. Superman Return’s idea of “dark”, on the other hand, is to literally make the main characters’ costume dark. (I’m sorry, I’ve tried giving it time, but I still don’t like that costume. It’s ugly, and it’s not Superman. Period. And after seeing the Q&A with Kevin Smith at http://www.popoholic.com/2006/04/20/kevin-smiths-superman-lives-story/, I have a sneaking suspicion that it was John Peters’ doing.)
Superman Returns pays considerable homage to past Superman adaptations, right down to the closing shot of the film, but it goes far beyond merely continuing the prior movie’s continuity or playful nods to it. It strip mines old plots instead of coming up with new ones. Lex Luthor gets out of prison after five years because Superman didn’t show up a court appeal, and goes back to the Fortress of Solitude to abscond with several of the information crystals in the main control panel, because ya know, those intrepid Kryptonians, for all their vaunted technology, never mastered the technology behind locked doors, and living in a big city like Metropolis did nothing to impart this consideration to Superman. Lex learns all about the crystals’ properties from the interactive Jor-El hologram (pity they couldn’t at least program that thing to respond only to Kryptonian life signs, and not just whatever bald ex-con who waltzes into the Fortress), encases one in kryptonite, and shoots it into the ocean in order to create a new continent that will displace North America, and create new high-tech real estate that everyone will want.
Um…didn’t Luthor try a scheme like this before?
So instead of a nuke blowing up the San Andreas fault to create a new western coastline, he’s going to use a crystal in the Atlantic to create a new eastern one? Is this the most original story the writers could come up with? And did we really need Lex Luthor to have yet another moll who turns out to be appalled at the idea of his killing people with his genocidal real estate scheme? Is Kitty really any different from Miss Teschmacher? At least Miss Teschmacher served some story function. Kitty serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
Granted, the Jason subplot is kinda new, and a bit of a bold move, given that they’ve never done it in the comics or any of the other major adaptations, but I’m not sure where it will go, and it creates some odd questions about Richard.
As for the length, well, when I first heard it was two and a half hours long, I figured it’d be more bang for the buck, and if the story justified it, why not? But man does this movie feel long. The entire “five years later” premise seems to have very little value to the story, existing mostly in order to make the Jason premise possible, with little or no impact on anything else in the film. And did we really need that entire ridiculous sequence with Superman in the hospital? What was that all about? Even if they needed to depict a period of convalescence for him, couldn’t a title card indicating the passage of some time have sufficed?
I’m sorry, I really was excited to see this movie. I wanted to like it, but I was really disappointed. The actors were mostly well-cast, and there was a definite affection for both the source material and the past films. But it needed a more original story, a better editor, and could’ve done without a few of the major plot holes. I give it a C+ for effort.
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES:
Is there some union rule for X-Men actors getting to play roles in other comic book adaptations? You have Halle Berry in X-Men and Catwoman, Shawn Ashmore plays Iceman in X-Men and Eric Summers, the power leech, in Smallville, and now James Marsden, who played Cyclops in X-Men, shows up in Superman Returns. (Yeah, yeah, I know, directors like to work with the same actors over and over…)
As I recall, the starship that sent infant Clark to Earth burnt up into a gray-looking rock by the time it crashed near the Kents in Superman. So where did Superman get that new-looking one? Did he build a new one at the Fortress? Even if he did, why doesn’t it look just as eroded when he crashed back on Earth?
Clark sees the Pulitzer that Lois won for her editorial, “Why The World Doesn’t Need Superman.” It appears to be a dark plaque with white lettering on it. But isn’t the Pulitzer Prize for journalism a round gold medal? Or does a recipient get both?
Why are the journalists covering the space shuttle launch on the plane launching the shuttle? Do journalists usually do this? Aren’t they usually on the ground in Houston or Florida?
The airliner carrying that new-fangled shuttle is mentioned to be a 777. But it looks nothing like one. A 777 doesn’t have that funky triple tail fin thing.
Why does a tiny particle of the crystal thrown into a small container of water cause an EM pulse? Why does throwing an entire crystal into the ocean not do this? And if Lex studied the properties of the crystal, why did he do this, knowing it would cause a blackout that could adversely affect him?
When Superman confronts that gunman armed with a huge machine gun on top of that building, Superman naturally walks up to the gun, with its bullets having no effect on him, and the thug then talks out a pistol and shoots Supes in the eye. I was expecting Superman to say, “Are you new here?” Seriously, doesn’t this clown know who Superman is? It’s only been five years.
During the “Superman Around the World” tv news segment reporting Superman’s return to heroic global deeds, the reporter mentions Gotham City. Nice touch, and a nice full circle, given the mention of Metropolis in Batman Forever.
When Superman keeps blowing out Lois’ cigarette, shouldn’t she feel his breath on her fingers?
Much as in the prior films, New York seems to be a stand-in for Metropolis. When Superman flies Lois from her apartment, their flight over the city shows what appears to be Central Park in the background, and I’m guessing others can identify those bridges over the Hudson and East Rivers. CP also appears later in the film.
I didn’t notice until well into the movie that Superman’s cape doesn’t have the yellow “S” on the back of it.
“Pulitzer Prizes are like the Academy Awards. Nobody remembers what you won it for; only that you won it.” –Perry White, referring to Lois’ achievement. For some reason, this line got a lot of laughs when he said it.
Okay, we know by now that Lois is always looking for trouble, and doing things like trespassing that get her in over her head. But why in the WORLD would she drag her five-year-old SON with her???
COMIC BOOK CLICHÉ: Lex not only tells Lois his entire plan, but where he got the means to do it, etc., but even has Lois sit next to a fax machine where she can send out a call for help, since the thug watching her and her son is too busy playing a piano duet of “Chopsticks” with her son. (No, that wasn’t a joke or sarcastic exaggeration. He actually does this.)
Okay, so Richard asks Lois if she ever in love with Superman. Then we find out that SURPRISE! Jason is Superman’s son. But if that’s true, then wouldn’t Richard know this? Wouldn’t he know that she and Supes were “together” once? The only this would make sense would be if she met Richard and had relations with him within days or weeks of her coupling with Superman. Since when does Lois have time for that number of encounters within the same short period of time, let alone the inclination for it?
Also, if this is the case, does she herself even remember it? As I understand it, this movie is a sequel to Superman II. But at the end of that movie, Clark erased Lois’ memory of their relationship. So what gives?
Why isn’t Jason vulnerable to kryptonite?
After Jason knocks out the clown-tattooed thug with the piano (Did I hear correctly, and they said that he killed him?), and Lex is told that the thug is out of commission because he was hit with the piano, Lex immediately asks about Jason. How does he know Jason did this? How does he know it’s not Superman who has shown up to save Lois?
Why didn’t Superman realize that he was weakened by his presence on the kryptonite-laced island that Lex created until Lex outright punched him?
If bullets bounce right off Superman without even damaging his costume, then how can Lex stab him through his costume with that shard of kryptonite?
Okay, so the general public knows that Superman is powered by sunlight. We even see that happen here in the movie. So after he falls back to Earth following his climactic resolution to Luthor’s scheme, why this bizarre sequence with him in the hospital? Why don’t the doctors just procure a full-spectrum light (yes, they exist in real life), and just shine on it him?
Also, when he first comes into the hospital, they easily rip off the upper portion of his costume? How can they do this, when that thing repels bullets?
Also, the needle they try to stick into his arm breaks. But doesn’t that mean that he’s back to full health? The ability of Lex and his thugs to beat the living tar out of him when he was on the kryptonite island demonstrated that when he’s weakened by kryptonite, he can be hurt, and even bleed, like a human. So if he was not at full health, shouldn’t the needle have gone into him? Wouldn’t this have even helped underscore to the audience how weak he was?
Btw, am I the only one who thought it was weird to see Clark drinking a beer? It just doesn't seem very Clarkish/Supermanish
Perhaps in your Spoiler Warning you should have also told us you were going to spoil a not-yet- seen-in-the US episode of Doctor Who for us as well. ; )
"Anyone else with me in the idea that Natalie Portman would have been a kickin' Lois?"
Hopefully.
As for the movie, the more I hear the more I think Singer made a huge mistake jumping to a project he's not suited for. I don't care how much love he had for the character, this movie does not sound good. It sounds like it tries too hard to be things it shouldn't be.
That whole "all that stuff" line in the trailer bothers me, too. I know it's not PC, but Superman was raised in Kansas, not New York City or LA, he believes in America, because he wasn't raised in an environment that makes it a sin to be patriotic.
Unlike the people who make the movies, and often the comics. Sad.
Perhaps in your Spoiler Warning you should have also told us you were going to spoil a not-yet- seen-in-the US episode of Doctor Who for us as well. ; )
Is it really a spoiler when Sarah Jane Smith appears in the first couple of minutes of the episode, and she's in the entire episode?
Oh, and that's more of a rhetorical question. :)
I'm part of a Doctor Who group where we've struggled with the same issues on our mailing list, to no avail - some people consider spoilers at different levels, whether it be story ideas or characters.
"But why does everyone keep referring to the first movie as "Superman: The Movie?" You realize that's not actually the title, right? It's just Superman."
Because in all the pre-release advertising, that WAS the title, and it makes it easier to refer to it by its original title when discussing it here because it's easier to distnguish what we're talking about: The film as opposed to the character himself.
PAD
I'll admit, it's sounding more and more like this isn't the movie for me, since (big confession time) 'Superman: The Movie' bores me to tears.
So if this takes a lot from that, I'm hoping that the one thing it left behind was the pacing. Glaciers outdistance that thing.
1You know I have an answer to why no one ever connects Superman and Clark at the Daily Planet: Has anyone noticed in Superman the Movie and in the movie, no one ever makes full eye contact with Clark. Lois and everyone just brushes past him. He's the man whose no there. But Superman, well everyone looks at him.
I love this movie. I sat there for two and half hours and I was a kid again and everything was possible. I believe a man can fly.
And I believe the same man can convence everyone he's two different people with just a clumsy walk and a pair of glasses.
This movie was garbage.
"On the other hand, there was nothing truly wince worthy. The film didn’t crash to a halt while Lois Lane recited poetry. There was no WTF moment such as Superman reversing the world or sucking Lois’ memory out of her head through her mouth…in other words, a sequence that erased the necessity of some large chunk of the movie. There was no Otis. The filmmakers trusted the material, as opposed to the original film where it often seemed they didn’t. "
I don;t think any of that stuff was wince worthy, they were fun and gave the whole thing a wiff of high drama/comedy.
Superman Returns returned Superman but didn;t return the fun.
Just a couple of comments, and some replies to Luigi:
First, What is wrong with Superman's costume in this movie? I keep hearing rumbling about it, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone's upset: mostly blue, red cape, red S and Hexagon with a yellow background... Other than the missing logo on the cape, it looks like the same freakin' costume to me, though the material it's made of looks a bit.. rubbery or something.
Second, I was out of the theater for a few minutes just as Superman arrived on the Krypton-continent -- was it established that it was actually covered in Kryptonite, or were we supposed to assume that from Lex's earlier comment about the crystals taking on properties of minerals around them? If it's the latter, I have no problem accepting that the "Kryptonite" on the island was slightly different from the Kryptonite in previous movies.
Luigi Novi wrote:
Why does throwing an entire crystal into the ocean not do this?
Well, despite Lois calling it an EMP, I'm not entirely certain that's EXACTLY what it was -- I think that was just the most convenient way for her to describe it. Did we see anyone who'd have a reason to really diagnose what happened call it that?
Anyway, there WAS a second blackout when the big crystal was thrown into the water. It blacked out the ship just as Lois was sending her fax, and the last word or two were cut off on the receiving end. The fax was found at the Planet office just after the power came back in Metropolis -- Jimmy had just said something about his camera not working, and the power comes on. He turns and is taking pictures around the offices, and sees the fax through the lens.
Why isn’t Jason vulnerable to kryptonite?
After Jason knocks out the clown-tattooed thug with the piano (Did I hear correctly, and they said that he killed him?), and Lex is told that the thug is out of commission because he was hit with the piano, Lex immediately asks about Jason. How does he know Jason did this? How does he know it’s not Superman who has shown up to save Lois?
I thought Jason showed some definite aversion to the stuff in the only scene where he's really exposed to it (Lex certainly noticed it, which is why he asked about who the kid's father was, and why he assumed that, in the absence of the obvious effects of a Superman-rescue (like a huge hole being knocked in the side of the yacht, and Superman's not having stuck around to save Lois and Jason when the second thug showed up), Jason did the rescuing.)-- I'm guessing he's not REALLY affected because he's half human. Besides, the Kryptonite in this movie didn't seem to cause extreme pain just by being near Superman -- I certainly wouldn't expect Jason to start screaming in agony.
If bullets bounce right off Superman without even damaging his costume, then how can Lex stab him through his costume with that shard of kryptonite?
Hasn't it been established that Superman's invulnerability is, in part, a powerful force-field a couple of millimeters from his body, which also protects the main part of his costume? I think it's safe to assume that a Kryptonite shard could be stabbed through that -- especically since Superman's powers had been sapped by the Kryptonite/Crystal hybrid that made up the bulk of that island.
Even if that's wrong, a fairly resilient cloth MIGHT not be visibly damaged in that sort of situation, if it can handle compression very well. His body stops the bullet before it can seriously deform (and rip) the material, so there's only the damage from pinching it between the bullet and the hard-as-steel skin, which MAY not be visible in this sort of situation. If that's the case, the Kryptonite overcomes his natural hard-as-steel skin, and pushes through the material.
Also, when he first comes into the hospital, they easily rip off the upper portion of his costume? How can they do this, when that thing repels bullets?
See above. With Superman's powers depleted from the Kryptonite, his powers wouldn't be protecting the suit any longer. Or, the material's fairly resilient to being "pinched", but doesn't have much tensile strength. Being strong against compression doesn't necessarily mean it's strong against being pulled apart.
*sigh*
In my previous comment, Luigi said the following as well, and I failed to mark it correctly:
"After Jason knocks out the clown-tattooed thug with the piano (Did I hear correctly, and they said that he killed him?), and Lex is told that the thug is out of commission because he was hit with the piano, Lex immediately asks about Jason. How does he know Jason did this? How does he know it’s not Superman who has shown up to save Lois?"
Yeah, spoilers here, too. You have been warned.
While I've never really been a fan of The Batman, I preferred BATMAN BEGINS to this. Honest.
I concur with the points Luigi makes, such as how is it that Superman doesn't notice he's standing on an island essentially made of kryptonite? Worse, the first time, he's so weakened by it, he gets clobbered by street thugs (so why doesn't he get killed by the fall off the cliff?!?! Makes absolutely NO sense) yet he somehow subsequently manages to shrug off the effects long enough to lift the whole thing into orbit?!?! My friend and I kept going "What the *&$^#???" at these huge inconsistencies.
The characters made no sense.
Lex now has Kryptonian techynology. Just the data storage capabilities of those crystals (having now access to the entire knowledge base of Krypton, he should be able to duplicate the process) would render IBM's stock good for toilet paper, if that. Oh, and FTL drives? Yeah, let's give Man the stars. Then we can hire Arab oil Shieks to clean out our toilet. But, no, instead he sets up another convoluted land deal. What is this? Who knew Luthor was a frustrated Re-Max real estate dealer? And the excuse he gives is beyond lame. Someone as intelligent and rich as he is would hire the best mercenaries money can buy instead of street thugs. His floozy made no sense, either. At least Tessmacher(sp?) had sex appeal. Even the lukewarm Lois had more of that than the brain-dead bimbo in this film. This is the best Luthor can manage? Sad.
Lois has won a Pulitzer for her writing. That should give her some clout. Yet she spends much of the film getting pushed around by people.
Clark is worse as he is practically the overly meek 60s version. In the Byrne-era one he's second only to Lois, if that, in journalistic talent. Yet, here, it's "Oh, Kent's back after five years away. *Yawn*. We'd hardly noticed he was away." Hunh?
People such as Perry who is clearly an incompetent. It is clear that Lois is correct in wanting to look into the EMP blackout. Especially since it happens right after Superman's return - gee, could there be a connection? But, no, Perry waves her off and downplays a story of that magnitude as barely worth the Planet's time. What's up with that?!
The Great Menace came across as The Monolith Monsters 2. OK, I liked the 50s original, but in a Superman movie?
It wasn't an AWFUL movie, just quite disappointing after Singer's superior work on the X-Men.
There were some things done right, though.
"A 777 doesn’t have that funky triple tail fin thing."
Neither does a 747, but the one used to ferry the real shuttle has a similar modification in case the shuttle takes out the vertical stabilizer. So it makes sense the movie's 777 does, too, although having the reporters on it didn't - and the editing was so poorly done I thought they were on the shuttle for a while.
"Why isn’t Jason vulnerable to kryptonite?"
Humans aren't and he's half human. Although that doesn't explain his power coming and going. He was under major stress later, but it still didn't manifest again.
"Even if he did, why doesn’t it look just as eroded when he crashed back on Earth?"
What is it with Kryptonian craft? Designed to fly across the galaxy, yet they don't even have landing gear? Same manufacturers as the original PLANET OF THE APES spacecraft, no doubt.
"Okay, so the general public knows that Superman is powered by sunlight."
Which is why Supergirl's much skimpier outfit makes more sense. More of her exposed to sunlight. Let's hear it for environmentally - conscious heroines. 8-)
The last scene where he flies off into near-Earth orbit. Why? OK, a take-off (sorry) on the first film. But SPIDER-MAN 2 had a better ending. He's dashing off to catch crooks or help in an emergency. Here, Supes looks like he's just off for a joyride.
"For some reason, this line got a lot of laughs when he said it."
Quite a few lines' situations got laughs at the theatre where we were. Including some I'm sure weren't supposed to. Not, on the whole, a shining endorsement.
After Jason knocks out the clown-tattooed thug with the piano (Did I hear correctly, and they said that he killed him?)
Yes, and is it just me or is it kind of sick that the 5 year old son of Superman first uses his power to kill someone?
Posted by: Luigi Novi
Clark sees the Pulitzer that Lois won for her editorial, “Why The World Doesn’t Need Superman.” It appears to be a dark plaque with white lettering on it. But isn’t the Pulitzer Prize for journalism a round gold medal? Or does a recipient get both?
That's not the prize -- the actual presentation banquet is what Lois is all dressed up for when she does her stupid-Lois-trick. Which, as i said in a comment that may not have been cleared yet, raises the question of why she apparently waited four years to write he little snit piece.
The airliner carrying that new-fangled shuttle is mentioned to be a 777. But it looks nothing like one. A 777 doesn’t have that funky triple tail fin thing.
Nor, i believe. does a standard 777 have the turned-up wingtips we see. Howver, if you look here or here, you can see that the actual 747 used to ferry the shuttle has a similarly modified tail structure. It's a modification to increase the effectiveness of the vertical stabiliser while carrying the shuttle. One assumes that a 777 used for the same purpose would also have such; this one also has wingtip mods similar to some i have seen on some 747s, as well.
Bill H
Yes, and is it just me or is it kind of sick that the 5 year old son of Superman first uses his power to kill someone?
Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with the deaths either. Then again, I think the kid could've been removed from the film and not had any major effect on the story. And I hate the fact that they're going to have to waste time dealing with him somehow in any sequels.
More than anything I just wish they'd made a "new" Superman movie and stayed away from the originals. All the stuff from the 70s movies co-opted into this one felt like it was just being done to blatantly manipulate the emotions of the long-time fans.
And, much like "King Kong" it came across like an overly long vanity project.
I agree that the Spidey3 trailer was the best part, tho I quite liked the looks of "Flyboys" too.
I was overjoyed when the film began. I was upset at the middle. The next day, I was gritting my teeth.
First, let's take the kid. It was never said specifically that he was Superman's son. If this were set in the DC Comics universe, it would be just as likely that the kid had the metagene and just happened to have powers.
Even if he didn't, though, the fact that the kid's first use of powers was deadly should have been upsetting to Supes. Just the fact that a child might have that power - his spawn or not - should have concerned him. The Superman I know would have gone to Lois - and possibly her Significant Other as well - and talked to them seriously about controlling and educating the kid, and offer to help. And if it truly WAS his kid, it's criminal that he didn't offer that help.
But maybe the kid is used to parental abuse. After all, his mom took him along on a potentially dangerous investigation. Sure, this breaking and entering of a rich man's yacht involved an EMP-pulse effect that nearly killed her in that plane. What harm could possibly come to her kid if she dragged him along? Sheesh. Does she give the kid old razor blades as playthings?
The central point of this story was Superman's absence. For all the money paid to extras for those crowd scenes (possibly more than the cost of all that CGI) we didn't get to see Superman's trip back to what he thought was Krypton. Instead we got a long title card to read. This wasn't something that they might be holding back for a DVD extra - this was a deliberate editorial decision, and a lousy one. Was his reason justified? How can we tell? Everything was tossed out there with no real justification.
But the most fatal flaw in the movie is that Superman had no fun. Ever. Part of the joy of being a superhero is supposed to be the handling of nasty situations with aplomb. The Superman of the 1950's was famous for his super-practical-jokes. Not this guy. Not even the "safest form of travel" line showed any real fun. Even Reeve's Superman took some joy in the situations he was in - and I don't mean his campy smile.
Kids and the kids inside us adults are supposed to be overjoyed imagnining ourselves as Superman. What kid would want to be this incarnation of the Man of Steel? What girl with romance in her heart would imagine herself to be Lois Lane, with the love-'em-and-leave-'em treatment she got from Big Blue?
What bothers me the most is, with all this ugly baggage, this might be a franchise-killer. The next film will almost certainly have to dump Lois's little bas...I mean "miracle baby"...and the hubby to work. Killed off-screen or on, it would be terrible. And no matter what the box office says, I don't see this being a Superman we'd want to revisit.
It was a good movie. Didn't get the rush from seeing this that I did from seeing S:TM on New year's Eve back in '78 (at least no HO scale buidings and pebbles trying to look like boulders in this one), but I like it well enough (and I also think BATMAN BEGINS is a better movie as well). Peter pretty much brought up all the plot holes I thought of, but I don't think they weren't big enough to complain about too loudly. I just thought the pacing was uneven more than anything. All I can say is I'm happy it didn't let me down -- last year was a bummer for movies on that end.
Okay -- I'm going to come out and say it, and I'm preparing to duck and run, but I LIKED Otis. Yes, off to camp town (do-dah, do-dah) we went when he showed up, but I thought he was funny as hell, and the chemistry between Hackman and him worked. I still laugh everytime I see him eyeballing the candy wrapper, or when he tells Luthor "I don't think he wants me to" when told to take Superman's cape.
Besides, my favorite character, Doc Savage, got beat over the head with the camp-club way worse in his movie than that up-start Superman did. Got complaints about camp, just get in line...
It was a mistake to make this a sequel (and the worst kind-rehashing the plot from an earlier film!). The homages started to get annoying. But I enjoyed it as much as I did X3.
Peter covered it all pretty well.
"The Superman I know would have gone to Lois - and possibly her Significant Other as well - and talked to them seriously about controlling and educating the kid, and offer to help. And if it truly WAS his kid, it's criminal that he didn't offer that help."
Too bad that Superman wasn't even aware of what had happened on the yacht.
The kid was acting to defend his mom. That's all the reason I need to not get creeped out by the death of the thug.
I enjoyed it. Not the best movie in the world, but certainly a fun way to spend an evening.
"The kid was acting to defend his mom. That's all the reason I need to not get creeped out by the death of the thug."
Yeah, I had no problem with that either. First of all, he's five years old. Five year olds simply haven't developed a sense of morality or an awareness of the outcome of their actions. All he knew was that a Bad Man was coming at his mother with a knife. He closely associated the Bad Man with the piano since the guy had been sitting there playing the duet. So basically he shoved the first thing that came to mind at the Bad Man to stop him from hurting his mother. He wasn't thinking about anything beyond that, and at that age, he wouldn't be.
What I thought was touching was the way he then apologized to his mother. Although they don't go into specifics, I was figuring the kid knew that he was superstrong, and his mother knew it, too. And at some point in the past she had said to him, "You mustn't use your strength. Not ever. That would be bad. If anyone learns of what you can do, they may take you away from mommy and study you" (which, let's face it, they might. "Superstrong kid, lady; national security.")
Another thing that Ariel picked up on that went right past me. In the Daily Planet office, Jason figures out that Clark is Superman. They have a POV shot where Jason is looking up at Clark, and then he looks over to the set where Superman is being shown in news footage and his head is at the exact same angle as Clark's. And Jason reacts in seeing the one next to the other.
What would have been a nice touch: At the end, if Jason had said, "Mommy, why do you pretend not to recognize him when he's wearing glasses?" and Lois replies, "Oh, it's just a little game he and mommy play." I would have liked that.
PAD
To respond to an earlier issue raised...
When Supes enteres the kid's bedroom...the kid is his son, and he now knows its his son...what's creepy about a dad entering his son's bedroom?
I was personally rather amazed that the only deaths in the entire movie were the thugs. It seems Superman can be everywhere at once.
As to PAD's question of why the Tidal Wave didn't work...Superman stopped it from having the effect Lex planned. However, Lex's land mass does raise...so Lex's comment that the two land masses can't coexist is questionable...but then again, the fact that a mad scientist was wrong about something isn't a huge problem.
I think the land mass that Luthor had created was only a first step, and not the much larger land mass that would result in the flooding of North America. When he was explaining his plan (such as it was) to Lois, he had several maps that showed incremental increases in the size of his new contintent, with corresponding increases in the area covered by water.
So presumably he would have made use of other crystals to add to the mass. That's my theory anyway.
I hadn't intended to see the movie at all (not a fan of any of the other movies), but was coerced into agreeing to see it. I was able to enjoy the effects and some of the dialogue, but overall, meh. I'm of the opinion that a totally fresh start was called for after so long an absence from the big screen.
Also, the Superman/Lois/Richard/Jason plot, while a bold move, creates an intolerable situation. Sure, intolerable situations happen in life, but in this case where it was entirely contrived, it seems unnecessary. There is basically no way that it can be worked out satisfactorily. For Superman to be with Lois, Richard - who is clearly a good man - needs to be edged out in some fashion. This sucks not only for him, but also for the boy who's spent most of his life belieinbg that Richard is his father, and it would eat at the consciences of Lois and Superman. On the other hand, Superman not being with Lois and his son is also intolerable.
So overall I think it was a bad move.
I did cringe at the death by piano, but I can accept it in the context of him protecting his mother.
As for the "joy" aspect that someone mentioned, there was at least a hint of that with the smirk that Supes lets slip after the bullet bounces off his eyeball.
"Am I the only one who found the kid kind of creepy?"
I thought he looked like the kid from "The Shining." I kept waiting for him to start talking to his finger.
And, let us not forget the truly awful line about "one of the things about crystals is that that adopt the properties of what's around them" (or words to that effect).
Ugh!
Never mind how mineralogically unsound that comment was, if it HAD been true, why didn't the one used in the arctic turn to brittle ice and then have the whole structure collapse of its own weight?
And, typing of minerals ... by and large, the kryptonite seen here often (note: not always) looked like pieces of inert, green plastic. Especially that tube the crystal was fitted into. The TV version of kryptonite worked better.
Yeah...Jon and John are correct about why there was no giant wave...that was phase one.
Yeah...of the whole deal with the kid, that was the part of him looking at Superman and Clark really clicked for me. Especially as Clark could see that the boy was making the connection in front of Lois and Richard.
"I think the land mass that Luthor had created was only a first step, and not the much larger land mass that would result in the flooding of North America. When he was explaining his plan (such as it was) to Lois, he had several maps that showed incremental increases in the size of his new contintent, with corresponding increases in the area covered by water.
So presumably he would have made use of other crystals to add to the mass. That's my theory anyway."
That's not a theory, that's exactly what was in the movie. This is why Kitty dropped the crystals, and why Lex was so mad about it.
I concur with the points Luigi makes, such as how is it that Superman doesn't notice he's standing on an island essentially made of kryptonite? Worse, the first time, he's so weakened by it, he gets clobbered by street thugs (so why doesn't he get killed by the fall off the cliff?!?! Makes absolutely NO sense) yet he somehow subsequently manages to shrug off the effects long enough to lift the whole thing into orbit?!?! My friend and I kept going "What the *&$^#???" at these huge inconsistencies.
I enjoyed the movie... it was fun. Different strokes for different folks, I supposed... Anyhoo, I wanted to add my two cents on some things I read through...
When superman lifted the giand krytonite continent, it was my impression that he went deep enough to get under a layer of rock and then proceed to pick up the giant continent... The layer of rock would protect him from the kryptonite (to some degree)... another reason why i assumed that's what he did was because of the chunks of rocks falling into the ocean and the shards of krytonite growing through the bedrock...
As far as superman's kid, I figured he was immune to the krytonite because of the fact that he's half human... I guess you can compare Jason to Blade, he's half human and half vampire, and he doesn't have the vampire weaknesses...
Everyone have a great day! I'm going back to bed!
"I concur with the points Luigi makes, such as how is it that Superman doesn't notice he's standing on an island essentially made of kryptonite? Worse, the first time, he's so weakened by it, he gets clobbered by street thugs (so why doesn't he get killed by the fall off the cliff?!?! Makes absolutely NO sense) yet he somehow subsequently manages to shrug off the effects long enough to lift the whole thing into orbit?!?!"
I didn't have a *huge* issue with that. They showed him going above the clouds to bathe in direct sunlight first. Green K doesn't seem to have the direct poison effect (Except when being stabbed), more of a power leeching. So he supercharged himself first.
I liked the plot with the kid. I had no issue with him killing the kid. As PAD said, his mommy was being threatened. Of course he's going to stop him. And he would have no direct idea of what would happen to the guy.
I was very, very impressed with how they handled Richard. It would have been too easy to kill him off, or make him a jerk. Instead, here's someone who is just as good as Superman in his own was. He's not an idiot, he knows about the kid.
And yet... he loves the kid and Lois enough that he doesn't care. He even drives them to the hospital. I don't see him and the kid being a problem for the next film.
"As far as superman's kid, I figured he was immune to the krytonite because of the fact that he's half human... I guess you can compare Jason to Blade, he's half human and half vampire, and he doesn't have the vampire weaknesses..."
Um, it had an effect on the kid. *that's* why Luthor asked who the kids father was. As soon as he pulled out the Kryponite, the kid started getting sickly.
I had a problem with Superman's son killing someone.
Not because it doesn't make sense. He was defending his Mom. The guy had it coming. Heck, the kid had never done anything super before, so he might not even *realise* that he was the one who moved the piano. I thought of these things within 2 minutes of seeing the scene.
I have a gut reaction problem with it just for what it means for the kid. If a five year old kid in the real world accidentally got hold of a gun and shot someone, that could scar him for life. What if this kid grows up and remembers that the first time he used his powers someone died?
Superman doesn't kill because he knows that if he ever went that far, he'd lose perspective. It saddens me a little to see the kid have to start off that way. I think it would have worked just as well if the kid had used Super breath to knock the guy back and break his arm. Then he could have kicked Superman with his buddies and gotten flattened by the falling crystal at the end.
A couple of notes about Jason. Minor things really, but worth thinking about:
Jason's hair was very, very long. As if it were hard to cut. Dead give-away, IMHO.
The clown-guy was a noted murderer. There was a throw-away line in the news room about the "Clown Killer" commiting several gruesome murders. I say, "Go, Jason!"
There's some question about his power coming-and-going, as well. Singer leaves it up to us to decide whether or not Jason crushed the door-handle as Dad opened the door.
How do you know the Kryptonite didn't affect the kid? It leaches power; it doesn't do the black-vein thing from Smallville. Maybe Luther thought about it, toyed with the kid, and since he didn't fall over dead, he rejected it as a silly idea. Doesn't mean he wasn't right. I think it's still open for debate.
"Um, it had an effect on the kid. *that's* why Luthor asked who the kids father was. As soon as he pulled out the Kryponite, the kid started getting sickly."
Not really. Yeah, the kid was looking at it, but the kid wasn't doing anything but cringing in his mother's arms. He was doing that before the Kryptonite was pulled out. If the K had made him sick, he would have gotten sicker when Lex waved it in front of his face.
I figure that the kid was immune either because he was half human, or because he wasn't exposed to Krypton before it blew up like Superbaby was.
Lois not being bothered by her immaculate conception: It's amazing what the human brain can rationalise. She might have thought she just got drunk and forgot about it. Maybe not. Really, I was waiting the entire movie for her to tell Clark that she knew his secret.
One thing that's odd, Brandon Routh really didn't have that many lines. At least, not that many lines that mattered. Strip away the stuff where he's just chatting at the Planet ("anyone know where to find a good apartment?"), strip away the speech to the plane passengers. You're left with a couple of good lines to Jimmy about what he's going through and a few things he said to Lois while flying. Even the flying scene didn't seem to say much.
I don't think I really know what Superman was going through for most of the movie. I know what he was *doing*, since there were lots of great action moments. But I really don't understand why he left, what his expectations were of Lois once he knew her status, or anything else about his feelings.
I liked the movie, but I feel like it wasn't very filling, just a lot of good action moments without much holding them together.
The intolerable situation can be solved with one word. Polyamory.
"Not really. Yeah, the kid was looking at it, but the kid wasn't doing anything but cringing in his mother's arms. He was doing that before the Kryptonite was pulled out. If the K had made him sick, he would have gotten sicker when Lex waved it in front of his face."
We'll have to agree to disagree, I found the kid's general demeanor changed slightly. He did not react as MUCH as Superman did-but even on Superman it took longer to start doing it's work. Yeah, he wasn't going into convulsions, but he stared at the kryptonite like it was scaring him. I actually, never got the impression that he was scared of anything until that point. He was sitting calmly in his mother's arms. That stood out to me.
Robin S.: Just a couple of comments, and some replies to Luigi: First, What is wrong with Superman's costume in this movie? I keep hearing rumbling about it, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone's upset: mostly blue, red cape, red S and Hexagon with a yellow background... Other than the missing logo on the cape, it looks like the same freakin' costume to me, though the material it's made of looks a bit.. rubbery or something.
Luigi Novi: The red portion of it is the problem. It’s dark red, which looks awful. It just doesn’t look like Superman. It looks like the “evil Superman” from the third movie.
Robin S.: was it established that it was actually covered in Kryptonite, or were we supposed to assume that from Lex's earlier comment about the crystals taking on properties of minerals around them? If it's the latter, I have no problem accepting that the "Kryptonite" on the island was slightly different from the Kryptonite in previous movies.
Luigi Novi: The continent appeared to be laced with the stuff, having been constructed wt it, and if it takes on the properties of kryptonite, why would those properties not be the same ones as that material? That was the whole point of that earlier line, wasn’t it?
Robin S.: Anyway, there WAS a second blackout when the big crystal was thrown into the water.
Luigi Novi: I apologize for not being clearer. I meant when teenage Clark threw it into the Antarctic in the first movie (which I now realize was not in the ocean, but on the land).
Robin S.: Hasn't it been established that Superman's invulnerability is, in part, a powerful force-field a couple of millimeters from his body, which also protects the main part of his costume?
Luigi Novi: Not in the movies, to my knowledge.
The StarWolf: Humans aren't and he's half human.
Luigi Novi: Good point.
The StarWolf: Yes, and is it just me or is it kind of sick that the 5 year old son of Superman first uses his power to kill someone?
Luigi Novi: That’s what I thought.
Peter David: Yeah, I had no problem with that either. First of all, he's five years old. Five year olds simply haven't developed a sense of morality or an awareness of the outcome of their actions. All he knew was that a Bad Man was coming at his mother with a knife. He closely associated the Bad Man with the piano since the guy had been sitting there playing the duet. So basically he shoved the first thing that came to mind at the Bad Man to stop him from hurting his mother. He wasn't thinking about anything beyond that, and at that age, he wouldn't be.
Luigi Novi: I don’t have any problems with Jason’s in terms of moral or legal culpability, but with regards to the theme of Superman, and as Thom said, what it means for Jason to know he killed someone at age 5. The idea of a five-year old son of Superman killing a guy sits a bit wrong with me writing-wise. I would’ve stated that the Clown guy was just knocked unconscious.
John: I was personally rather amazed that the only deaths in the entire movie were the thugs.
Luigi Novi: That we know of.
Robert Fuller: When superman lifted the giand krytonite continent, it was my impression that he went deep enough to get under a layer of rock and then proceed to pick up the giant continent... The layer of rock would protect him from the kryptonite (to some degree)
Luigi Novi: That’s why I thought he went underneath the ocean floor too. But his weakening when throwing the island into the Sun obfuscated this point for me.
Trek Barnes: They showed him going above the clouds to bathe in direct sunlight first. Green K doesn't seem to have the direct poison effect (Except when being stabbed), more of a power leeching. So he supercharged himself first.
Luigi Novi: Actually, I seem to recall him charging himself not before he confronted Lex on the island, but after that encounter, and before the second one when he lifted the island and flew it into space. Isn’t that how it happened?
I'm kind of hazy on the older movies but I just assumed that the Kryptonite didn't effect Jason all that much because his powers hadn't really started to kick in yet.
He obviously has had several medical conditions in his youth and it's clear that he hasn't yet manifested any powers yet. Just like Clark needing glasses until his powers fully kicked in.
The piano was quite possibly the first usage of his super-human powers, and then it was under fear for his mother.
The Kryptonite wouldn't have affected him yet, and even if it did, it only serves to "humanize" him when it's just near him and he wouldn't have had to worry about that since as far as he knew, he was human.
And I had also thought that the Land Mass that formed didn't totally turn into Kryptonite but rather had bits and sections of it as shown by the close up of the gleams of certain points in the rocks. Didn't Penny's dropping of the crystals cause the land mass to get larger and start pushing through the Kryptonite mass and causing those harmful parts to fall away? Maybe I watched that wrong, I was bored silly at this point.
I don't think Kitty's dropping the crystals did anything. The crstals weren't supposed to react until they hit water. We never saw a moment when the growth dramatically increased, we never saw the crystals hit water, and we never saw another EMP. I'd say the only thing that happened with the crystals was that they got tossed into space with the rest of the growing island.
>The piano was quite possibly the first usage of his super-human powers, and then it was under fear for his mother.
Then why didn't they kick in again when both he, she AND his father were about to drown in the sinking ship? Woefully inconsistent.
Hey, in the next film they should have Clark reveal himself to be Superman to the whole world without a good reason.
No.... that would silly.:)
there was no payoff with Superman and Lex at the end
That was my biggest problem with the movie. There really wasn't a payoff at all. We saw where Lex ended up (Yea for not killing him, I'm sick of dead badguys at the end of superhero movies) and that was a masterful moment with Supes and the kid, but like S:TM and SII, the ending od S:R is weak.
What would have been a nice touch: At the end, if Jason had said, "Mommy, why do you pretend not to recognize him when he's wearing glasses?" and Lois replies, "Oh, it's just a little game he and mommy play." I would have liked that.
And that, PAD, is why we love your writing. That's a great idea.
I was expecting Jason to say something as they were leaving the hospital like "Bye, Mr. Clark!"
I think I agree with the general assessment: best of the films, and thankfully no lurching from stupidity to high drama. It's not quite top-notch, but it certainly brings the series back to life.
I think the boy was just immune to Kryptonite because he was half-human. Because of that immunity, I was really expecting him to save Superman in some fashion. Thankfully, they didn't do that. It would have just destroyed the movie, I think. (Well, maybe not if you throw in a couple of Jor-El lines.)
On the island-lifting. It did seem inconsistent, but I took the solar super-charging as both a healing technique and immunity boost. It gave him enough to do the job, but it wasn't exactly 100% effective considering how he hurtled back to Earth.
Just a quick disclaimer: I am very, very willing to cling stubbornly to my suspension of disbelief, even through the biggest plot holes (which I typically fill with whatever tenuous explanations I can come up with), so I realize my explanations for these things don't work for everyone, and were almost certainly not intended by the film makers.
Luigi Novi wrote (at July 2, 2006 02:14 AM )
Robin S.: Just a couple of comments, and some replies to Luigi: First, What is wrong with Superman's costume in this movie? I keep hearing rumbling about it, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone's upset: mostly blue, red cape, red S and Hexagon with a yellow background... Other than the missing logo on the cape, it looks like the same freakin' costume to me, though the material it's made of looks a bit.. rubbery or something.
Luigi Novi: The red portion of it is the problem. It’s dark red, which looks awful. It just doesn’t look like Superman. It looks like the “evil Superman” from the third movie.
Fair enough, but I'm just not seeing it. Then again, my friends and family seem to think I'm color blind (I'm not, technically, but I have a hell of a time distinguishing between shades of the same color, and I'm utterly incapable of telling whether two colors look "good" together).
Robin S.: was it established that it was actually covered in Kryptonite, or were we supposed to assume that from Lex's earlier comment about the crystals taking on properties of minerals around them? If it's the latter, I have no problem accepting that the "Kryptonite" on the island was slightly different from the Kryptonite in previous movies.
Luigi Novi: The continent appeared to be laced with the stuff, having been constructed wt it, and if it takes on the properties of kryptonite, why would those properties not be the same ones as that material? That was the whole point of that earlier line, wasn’t it?
That was the point of the earlier line; I just don't have any problem with assuming that Lex was wrong and that the crystals didn't mimic the properties as perfectly as he thought.
Robin S.: Anyway, there WAS a second blackout when the big crystal was thrown into the water.
Luigi Novi: I apologize for not being clearer. I meant when teenage Clark threw it into the Antarctic in the first movie (which I now realize was not in the ocean, but on the land).
Ahh. Was there anything around there that would've shown the effects of an EM pulse, anyway?
John: I was personally rather amazed that the only deaths in the entire movie were the thugs.
Luigi Novi: That we know of.
There were almost certainly deaths during each of the blackouts -- they disabled everything, after all, not just things powered by the electric grid. Everyone with a pacemaker should've toppled over, and it would've essentially pulled the plug on anyone who was on life support.
That kind of annoyed me, actually -- I had hoped that there would at least be a line about it, especially when Lois was arguing that the blackout was the story. "It killed people all over Metropolis, Chief -- it stopped pacemakers! It wasn't just a blackout!"
Robert Fuller: When superman lifted the giand krytonite continent, it was my impression that he went deep enough to get under a layer of rock and then proceed to pick up the giant continent... The layer of rock would protect him from the kryptonite (to some degree)
Luigi Novi: That’s why I thought he went underneath the ocean floor too. But his weakening when throwing the island into the Sun obfuscated this point for me.
I thought, as he carried the island up, the protective ground layer he'd picked up had started to chip away.
Trek Barnes: They showed him going above the clouds to bathe in direct sunlight first. Green K doesn't seem to have the direct poison effect (Except when being stabbed), more of a power leeching. So he supercharged himself first.
Luigi Novi: Actually, I seem to recall him charging himself not before he confronted Lex on the island, but after that encounter, and before the second one when he lifted the island and flew it into space. Isn’t that how it happened?
Yeah -- the first encounter showed him getting weakened really quickly, and he knew he had to do something, so he flew up (I was really kind of expecting to see him fly all the way to the sun and possibly through the outer layer at that point), supercharged, and came back to pick up the island, which helps to provide another little bit of explanation about why he survived the second exposure.
The StarWolf wrote (at July 2, 2006 03:43 AM):
Then why didn't they kick in again when both he, she AND his father were about to drown in the sinking ship? Woefully inconsistent.
Maybe he only has a limited amount of power? He's only half-Kryptonian, maybe his cells don't store the solar energy as well, so he only had the power to use once.
Besides, I'm not sure how much super strength would've helped him by the time he realized they were really in immediate danger. He'd have no leverage to open the door, especially not once it had gotten below the surface and he had to deal with the tons of water on top of it in addition to the weight of the door itself (which looked pretty sturdy).
I liked it. A lot. Now, I saw it in an Imax theater, in surround sound, with portions in 3D (and apparently a longer version than in regular theaters- 2 and a half hours), so my experience of the film probably won't be quite the same as those who saw it in a regular theater.
Still, I'm sure I'd have liked the film just as much in a regular theater.
As to the film itself, I loved that they used the John Williams score for both the opening titles and certain scenes in the film. I also thought Brandon Routh did a great job as Superman. Actually, I didn’t have a problem with anyone in the cast.
Other specific things I liked: After saving a space shuttle and jet, Superman reminded the jet’s passengers that, statistically speaking, flying was still the safest way to travel, followed by Lois Lane fainting; Noel Neill's and Jack Larson's cameo appearances (too bad they couldn't have found something for Phyllis Coates, too); Frank Langella channeling John Hamilton with "Great Caesar's Ghost." (I don't recall Jackie Cooper's Perry having said that; but then it's been years since I saw _Superman II_, have only seen bits of _Superman III_ and never saw _Superman IV_.); and the dedication to Christopher and Dana Reeve.
Here’s what I didn’t like. They call Superman a hero? He’s a sadist. What he did to that poor dog... O.K., he’s at the Kent farm, and his dog brings him a ball. Wants to play fetch. So Supes throws it- maybe a mile away. The dog starts to take off after it, then stops, as he realizes he’s got no chance of finding that ball.
Talk about your dirty tricks.
By the way, speaking of Clark's concurrent absence with Superman, I read somewhere (don't remember where, but it wasn't the novelization nor any of the "movie prequel" comic books, since I've not read any of them) that Ma Kent told Clark she'd been imitating Clark's hand writing and sending post cards to the Daily Planet from various places from time to time. I was surprised that bit of conversation wasn't in the movie, if that was an actual plot point from it, and I'm not just mis-remembering someone's suggestion.
Or maybe I read a review of the "Ma Kent" movie prequel comic, and it was mentioned there. In any event, it would have made sense to have had a line along those lines be included to cover for Clark's absence.
Speaking of Christopher Reeve, there was actually one point when Superman flew straight toward camera that he looked like Reeve. It was a very fast shot, and probably my imagination, rather than some quick morphing effect.
All in all, I enjoyed it.
On the subject of henchmen, I'm glad Otis wasn't in this film. Mainly because all the henchmen died, and I like Otis. Hope he's safe in a nice warm cell somewhere, or having served his time, has gone straight and is now working as a bagger at Kroger.
Rick
P.S. speaking of Superman, I recommend the documentary, _Look, Up in the Sky- The Amazing Story of Superman_, just released on DVD. Good stuff.
And, of course, episodes of the _Superman_ radio series starring Clayton "Bud" Collier. Ostensibly aimed at children, it was by no means childish. Highly recommended is the "Superman Vs. the Atom Man" storyline, in which Supes faces off against the Kryponite-powered Nazi atom man in late 1945; "Knights of the White Carnation", in which Supes takes on a racist organization; and "Superman Vs. Kryptonite", in which Big George Latimer gets hold of both the last piece of Kryptonite and Superman (both from 1947).
All three storylines are available through Radio spirits, and probably other dealers as well.
Good to read all the posts.
So I can skip this at the movies and wait for free tv.
I wonder when they have to incorporate the kid into the comics. First the albatros which is Peter Parkers marriage to MJ - according to their EiC -, now this :-)
They should have let Tarrantino made a stab at this :-) His little monologue about Superman and Clark Kent in Kill Bill 2 was so great and true -Clark Kent is how Superman views us -, one has to wonder what he would do with the material.
I just back from SUPERMAN RETURNS, and I thought it was decent: Good acting (loved this Luthor!), okay action, plenty of plotholes.
Did they skip a scene? About the middle of the movie, Lois drops her purse and Clark is helping her pick everything up. His glasses fall off, he looks like he's about to tell her his secret, and instead he puts them back on. However, one of the things that fell out of Lois' purse is a phone -- and it's likely that, as a reporter, she has a cameraphone. I was expecting that her phone had accidentally taken a picture of Clark sans glasses, and later when reviewing her pics she'd see that without his glasses, Clark looks an awful lot like Superman.
Also, will DC *ever* establish how much/fast kryptonite affects Superman? The first time he's on the island, it weakens him enough that several orginary goons can beat him up. Later, Superman is picking up the same island, with krpytonite poking out at him, and he can fly it into space! Oy. (Then again, SMALLVILLE often has Clark helpless almost immediately when he's around kryptonite, yet in the first episode he had a piece tied against his skin for (probably) hours without dying.)
I liked it.
As to some of the story problems people have had:
Lex's island wasn't 100% kryptonite. Once Superman was punched by Lex, he looks down and sees kryptonite running through the rock (it glows and everything.)
And when Superman picks it up, they showed glowing kryptonite growing out of the bottom towards Superman.
The "Flying is the safest form of travel speech" is a direct homage to the first film. After rescuing Lois, Superman delivers the speech, flies away, and Lois faints.
I assumed that the clown tattooed thug was a well known child molester/killer, so his death didn't bug me. And as to how the killing will affect Jason, how cool will it be for Superman to start teaching his kid about how to use his powers, and the kid keeps agonizing that the first time he used his powers, he hurt someone?
Overall I enjoyed the film, but I did see where they could have trimmed down the running time by twenty minutes (just little cuts all over.)
Matt
(And am I the only one who remembers how in Superman IV, the superkiss wore off and Lois remembered? I know, I know, "Superman IV doesn't count", just saying.)
Peter, THE biggest (and there are several) flaw of SUPERMAN RETURNS is this:
WHAT DOES LOIS REMEMBER?
She's pregnant with Superman's kid but
a) Doesn't remember having sex with Superman, and thus following SUPERMAN II
OR
b) Superman never told her he was Clark, and thus diverging from SUPERMAN II.
EITHER way it looks horrifically bad because a) Lois had to assumed she was raped after being slipped some rohypnol (5 years ago circa 2001) or a mickey (25 years ago circa 1980)
OR
Superman is an even BIGGER jerk to Lois Lane in the SUPERMAN RETURNS than he was to Lana Lang on SMALLVILLE (and that is indeed no small feat).
I had no problems believing a man could fly, it when he was on the ground that the movie floundered. The "super" part was good it's the "man" part that stunk on ice (and it got really cold on Krypton).
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Instead of a flashback of young Clark running in the fields, maybe they could have had a flashback of Lois and Clark or Lois and Superman--at the very least so the director could see the flaw.
It surprises me that so many people have a problem with Superman lifting the kryptonite island into space. That was the whole point: he wasn't going to let the kryptonite stop him. He was determined to overcome his weakness in order to do the right thing and save the day, even if it killed him... which it basically did. For this reason, I found it to be a very moving moment.
The idea of it is great. His father inspired him to surpass his limitations.
The execution of that great idea was a little off, however. Kryptonite has always been a huge plot device. When a writer wants Superman to be powerless, kryptonite evens the odds for any villain. Now we see something where the kryptonite doesn't do that if Superman just really wants it not to.
It's a fine line. Boromir continued to fight after being shot with several arrows in Fellowship of the Ring. That's the same kind of thing, and it was almost as extreme. However, the fact that he died afterward made it more acceptable. We all knew he was going to die, it was just a matter of how long he could last.
Everybody knew Superman wouldn't die, so a lot of us just sat there thinking "Why isn't he falling down?" If the scene had just been cut a little quicker, it wouldn't have been as much of a problem. 10 seconds of fighting off the green K wouldn't have given me the same issues.
Hey, where was Otis? 'Here's your can, Mr. Luthor."
Superman needs to go up against some villians on par with his physical strength. Not be bum rushed by Luthor's old jail pals.
Someone asked how Perry White would blow off the more important story of the blackout in favor of focusing on Superman's Return... um, not to be trite, but have you watched any American media lately? Newspapers in particular have to go through increasingly eyecatching headline tactics to get readership in the first place; it's how you end up with people like Jayson Blair. Having worked in a newsroom, I can tell you from personal experience it's more about covering the big story better than the other guy than it is about doing original/groundbreaking work. And you'll note that every TV screen in the movie was blaring on about Superman's return.
Luigi Novi: I meant [regarding the EMP, or lack thereof] when teenage Clark threw it into the Antarctic in the first movie (which I now realize was not in the ocean, but on the land).
I went back and watched S:TM and SII two weekends ago, mostly because for some reason my comic book loving girlfriend had never seen them, and also to brush up for SR. In S:TM, when the young Clark throws the Kryptonian crystal out onto the ice floe, the crystal lands, then melts through the ice to (presumably) drop into the water beneath. What follows is a blackout with what could be construed as the 70s special effects equivalent of an electromagnetic pulse. And as Robin S. notes, what would be around up there to be affected by an EMP?
The StarWolf: [W]hy didn't [Jason's superpowers] kick in again when both he, she AND his father were about to drown in the sinking ship? Woefully inconsistent.
Yeah, puberty's a bitch, especially when you're not even pubescent. Can you imagine what his voice is going to be like when it starts changing? Dogs in China will be keeling over dead!
To answer a couple other minor points, Lois, in addition to essentially recapping the first interview from S:TM for Richard, throws in a few things that weren't covered in that film (like Superman's power coming from our yellow sun, and how Kryptonite is a radioactive chunk of his home planet). This is stuff that is current comics continuity, but I don't know if they were when S:TM was made nearly 30 years ago.
What's to say that Lois' Pulitzer-winning editorial "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman" wasn't more of a 'well, he's gone, so we're all going to have to pull together, just like we did before there was a Superman' sort of thing? Granted, the way it's referred to in the film seem to indicate that it's a scathing indictment of Supes' absence, and Lois' bitterness seems to back that interpretation up, but I suppose until the DVD comes out we'll never know exactly how her editorial read.
Speaking of the DVD, I won't be suprised if a good number of throwaway lines ("Why were you gone for FIVE FREAKING YEARS, Superman? I mean, you can fly fast enough to go BACK IN TIME!" "Well, I, um, got blown off course... embarassing as it is for the Man of Steel to admit...") that were badly needed to cover up some of the rough patches of the story make their apperance there, though I can't quite understand the benefit of 'saving' them for the DVD.
Regarding Lois' bitterness and her apparent instant hostility toward Supes at his return, remember that there was that one brief moment where, upon saving the plane, entering it and asking if everyone was okay, there's a good bit of significant eye contact between Supes and Lois which (at least to my eye) was not hostile in the least... more like "you're back, thank God you're back!"
Regarding Lex, let's not forget that he's always wanted land (a new West Coast in S:TM, and to be 'King of Australia' in SII... and in that regard, I thought it was quite nice that Lex finally gets his own island by the end of SR), so his scheme in this film is not exactly out of character for him.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the movie very much. I've heard a lot of people wondering why "SR" was not a complete reboot of the Superman franchise in the way that "Batman Begins" was... I'll tell you why: Superman didn't need a reboot; Batman did, very badly. The first two Superman films are still revered by fans today, despite their age and their own issues, and were deliberatly constructed to be as faithful to the comics as possible. The Batman films, especially of the Schumaker era, were not. As much as I love the Tim Burton Batman, it's the Tim Burton Batman, and not the iconic Batman. Not so with the Superman movies. One could argue that no Superman film or TV series could be successful unless it had Christopher Reeve in it. That version of Superman became THE version of Superman, at least on the Hollywood side of things, and to ignore that fact is to shoot yourself in the foot.
So, yes, "Superman Returns" dipped fairly deep into the homage well, but not unforgivably so. You have to realize that no matter how a director - in this case, Bryan Singer, a guy who's shown a good capability for film, comic book or not - approached the project, there would be inevitably be comparisons of this film to the much-loved first two. You've also got to realize that you've got to bring a storyline that was (let's face it) a bit hackneyed and developmentally overwrought (has anyone heard the stories of what went on behind the scenes for SII?) in 1980 and make it work in 2006, both behind and on the screen. Considering what you've got to work with, I felt the film did a more than capable job of navigating that minefield of mixing the new with the old in a way that pleases the largest audience. The "air travel" line got a lot of cheers at the showing I attended, as did a lot of the other smaller touches which referenced the earlier films. I was particularly happy that composer/editor John Ottman didn't even try to redo the classic John Williams "Superman" theme... honestly, how can anyone do a better theme for him than that? Yeah, there were plot holes, but let's face it, Supes himself is one big plot hole. A guy that can fly? Who gets powers from the sun? How, exactly, do the physics of THAT work? Show me a good comic book film without plot holes and I'll show you a film that's not about comic books. By and large, the only question I left the movie with was "why is it Cyclops always gets the short end of the stick in Hollywood?"
Gotta disagree with your Hackman/Spacey comparison, PAD. For me, Spacey was pretty much the best thing in the movie, actually eminating the menace that Hackman never did. But your Reeve/What'sHisName take was dead-on. They actually gave Reeve things to do, they actually let him ACT. What'sHisName, in contast, essentially got to pose, and it just didn't have the same impact. All-in-all, I was as mildly disappointed in this flick as I was in X3. Neither was spectactularly awful, but neither lived up to their full potential, either.
However, I have a great idea for a sequel that I'm sure would be kick-ass. Cast Chris Rock as a computer genius who manages to split Supes into his good and evil selves, and you have the makings of a masterpiece. And then as a followup to that we can get a little more adult with the third one by calling it "Superman: The Quest for a Piece of Ass." Trust me, it's a one-two punch that can't miss.
"b) Superman never told her he was Clark, and thus diverging from SUPERMAN II."
No, the Super kiss made her forget everything...including that Clark and Superman are the same guy. At no point in this film did Lois know they were...which is consistant with the second film. Adding the son is the only kink to that.
>Newspapers in particular have to go through increasingly eyecatching headline tactics to get readership in the first place;
Ummm ... and "HUNDREDS [thousands?] DIE IN MYSTERIOUS BLACKOUT!!!" isn't eyecatching enough?
>first two Superman films ... were deliberatly constructed to be as faithful to the comics as possible.
And they were. Of the 60s/70s comics. DC decided it was time to drag the legend into the late 20th century and had Byrne redesign him into a more human and better-rounded manner in '86. So why didn't they go with that one instead?
>Regarding Lex, let's not forget that he's always wanted land ... a new West Coast in S:TM, and to be 'King of Australia' in SII...
OK, here's how I see it.
Lex walks into a meeting of the UN General Assembly (or sends a comic-book hologram). Demonstrates a couple of aspects of Kryptonian technology, including showing he's got the key to FTL travel.
Once he's got their attention, "OK, I can give this to ONE country (guess which one) and have them gain an unbeatable advantage, or I can give it to each of you and the stars will be yours to plunder for resources. In return? Oh, I want Australia." Want to bet the moving vans would be there the next morning?
I'll take that bet and double it. You're saying they'd just give him Australia? That's what the UN does... they sell continents? And THAT'S supposed to be more plausible than what happened in the movie?
Robin S.: Fair enough, but I'm just not seeing it. Then again, my friends and family seem to think I'm color blind (I'm not, technically, but I have a hell of a time distinguishing between shades of the same color, and I'm utterly incapable of telling whether two colors look "good" together).
Luigi Novi: Must make playing the snow a precarious practice. :-)
Robin S.: That was the point of the earlier line; I just don't have any problem with assuming that Lex was wrong and that the crystals didn't mimic the properties as perfectly as he thought.
Luigi Novi: But the reason he thought that is because he specifically asked the Jor-El hologram to tell him EVEYRTHING about them. That instruction by him to the computer program set up his later explanation about the mimicking of properties.
Robin S.: Ahh. Was there anything around there that would've shown the effects of an EM pulse, anyway?
Luigi Novi: Submarines, ice breaker ships, research stations, planes flying overheard, etc.
Rick Keating: Here’s what I didn’t like. They call Superman a hero? He’s a sadist. What he did to that poor dog... O.K., he’s at the Kent farm, and his dog brings him a ball. Wants to play fetch. So Supes throws it- maybe a mile away. The dog starts to take off after it, then stops, as he realizes he’s got no chance of finding that ball. Talk about your dirty tricks.
Luigi Novi: That’s hardly what the word “sadism” means.
BrakYeller: What follows is a blackout with what could be construed as the 70s special effects equivalent of an electromagnetic pulse. And as Robin S. notes, what would be around up there to be affected by an EMP?
Luigi Novi: See above.
Luigi Nova wrote "I’m amazed that X-Men: The Last Stand, which I think was a pretty good continuation of that franchise, got so much uneven critical reaction, while this overhyped, mediocre film is getting so much positive buzz."
Actually, there's been plenty of negative reviews of SUPERMAN RETURNS. Ebert gave it only two stars, which seemed generous compared to what he wrote in his review. And the NEW YORKER's critic acted like he was royally P.O.ed about having to write about what he regarded as complete nonsense. (He spent part of the review praising the work of uber-swiper Roy Lichtenstein.)
As for Lois' son, well, I'm working on a letter to COMICS BUYER'S GUIDE asking the question has any character's story has ever been affected by his appearances in other media the way Superman's has.
Think about it: Only two-three years after Superman's debut, he went from leaping to flying thanks to either (I'm confused about which) the radio show producers deciding flying would make for a better sound effect, or the Fleischer studios thinking it would look better in the cartoons. The radio show was responsible for changing from the "Daily Star" edited by George Taylor to "The Daily Planet" edited by Perry White. The radio show also brought in Jimmy Olsen and kryptonite.
Then, SUPERMAN THE MOVIE gave us Krypton the kold krystal planet and Superman as Christ notion that John Byrne used when he rebooted Kal-El. (The movie also started the idea of the crystal "growing" the Fortress of Solitude, which has just been used in the comic.)
When it was decided to have the title characters finally marry for real in the LOIS & CLARK TV series, Superman and Lois married in the comic book as well.
(Quick digression for something that happened at that time: I had just gotten the SUPERMAN Wedding Album before going to work and, at work, showed it to a friend and said "Superman's finally getting married." The friend said "To who?" I've always suspected a member of DC's Promotions Staff dropped to the ground and died at that second.)
Then, in SMALLVILLE this past season, we had the introduction of black kryptonite. Black K has since appeared in SUPERGIRL and one other title.
So, I wouldn't be surprised at all if, sometime soon, DC announces that Lois is expecting. (And this would be a perfect time for it, after a year of Clark not having any powers.) It would keep the comic and the movie in sync.
"Then, in SMALLVILLE this past season, we had the introduction of black kryptonite. Black K has since appeared in SUPERGIRL and one other title."
Jeph Loeb writes Supergirl and is a writer on Smallville. That one might be more a matter of a writer using the same trick twice than one media following the lead of the other.
As for keeping the comic and the movie in sync, it would only do that partially. Time moves so slow in comics that by the time the kid was taking his first steps, the sequel would be out with an 8 year old son. By the time the comic version was toilet trained, the second sequel would be out with a 10 or 11 year old kid.
DC still might do it, for exactly the reasons you mention. I just really hope they don't, since this is a losing race with way too many consequences.
Anyone else think the kid is going to die in one of the sequels?
Luigi,
I was being facetious. But it still wasn't nice to the dog to toss the ball _that_ far away (though I'm sure Supes himself later retrieved it or played a real game of fetch off camera, later on).
Rick
Well, Superman Returns opened #1 with $52.2 million for the weekend, $84.2 million since it opened on Wednesday.
Considering that Batman Begins had made $48 million or so in it's opening weekend, and about $74 million for the 5-day haul after also opening on a Wednesday, I'm not sure if DC is going to be happy or disappointed with those figures for Superman Returns.
Basically, the Wednesday opening for Superman set the two films apart after the first 5 days, and this seemed to be the film with far more expectations and hype over Batman Begins.
Kim Metzger: Luigi Nova wrote…
Luigi Novi: Novi. Not Nova. I’m not an exploding star, or a Chevy.
Kim Metzger: Actually, there's been plenty of negative reviews of SUPERMAN RETURNS.
Luigi Novi: Now, yes. But at the time I saw the film, all the pre-release buzz and reviews I read were positive.
Kim Metzger: Then, in SMALLVILLE this past season, we had the introduction of black kryptonite. Black K has since appeared in SUPERGIRL and one other title.
Jason M. Bryant: Jeph Loeb writes Supergirl and is a writer on Smallville.
Luigi Novi: And a producer, IIRC.
Rick Keating: Luigi, I was being facetious. But it still wasn't nice to the dog to toss the ball _that_ far away
Luigi Novi: Sorry, I didn’t realize that. But c’mon, you’ve never pretended to throw a ball with a dog, while secretly palming it? :-)
So, I bet $5 Bizzaro is the baddie in the sequel. Blood in the kriptonite pulled from SM, & then the camera focusing on it. All in all I give the movie a strong b+ or a weak a-. Can't decide but it was a good flick.
cheers
Joe V.
Good review peter. I agree except for one thing: I did very much have a WTF? moment in this movie. Namely when Superman decides to deal with the menace of a rock of Kryptonite the size of the Himalayas by....LIFTING it and CARRYING IT OFF! He become so powerless that Luthor could knock him down only an hour earlier just by standing on it but now he can touch it, and lift it? Come on...
Overall it didn't really blow me away. Too slavish to the Donner films, including the bad parts (I fully feel the Luthor aspects completely annihiliated the tension and any sense of opposition) and Routh is no Reeve. He wasn't bad. But PAD hit the nail on the head when he said Routh needs the suit and the effects, and Reeve just needed his acting and body language.
Also, he lacked Reeve's warmth and friendliness. And the ability to not only make the boy scout stuff not sound corny but true and meant.
Overall just okay. It looked great of course and there was plenty to enjoy. But I don't need 'superson' in the upcoming movies. This should have been done at the end of whatever new movies they're making. Not bloody start out with it!
(Then again, the box office is not really great all things considering. More like MI III numbers. X3 made twice as much in less time. So will there be more??)
I pretty much agree with PAD's thoughts on the film, but in the end I enjoyed the original more. When I was talking to friends, it was just hard to put into words. Superman Returns seems to be the superior movie, but the original just have something magical about them. There is a feeling I got when I went back and watched Superman and Superman II, that I did just not get with Returns.
Actually, the most exciting thing about the movie to me was the Spider-Man 3 trailer shown before it. Spider-Man 2 is THE superhero movie, and that was one of the best teasers I have seen.
Jason M. Bryant's list of incredibly petty quibbles:
1) Did the camera man have a foot fetish? There were a *lot* of shots of Superman's boots.
2) Why didn't Kal Penn get any lines? I loved that guy in Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle, and I spent the whole movie thinking "When does Kumar get to speak?!"
3) Can't they at least give Routh some thick glasses? Big, thick glasses actually distort the look of a face a little, making for a slightly better disguise. Superman has X-Ray vision, it wouldn't slow him down!
4) Computer generated Brandon Routh was more buff than regular Brandon Routh.
5) Nobody in Metropolis (except a 5 year old kid) can figure out Superman's secret identity. Meanwhile, Batman has one of the most effective masks in the Superhero biz, but every time he sees a girl with a nice pair of legs he rips his mask off and yells "I'm Bruce Wayne!"
I'm divided over this film. On one hand, I hate the new costume. It's not the colors of the S shield, it's the size. Why so little? I also had an extreme dislike to Lois. I don't know if it's the actress or the writing, but I just didn't like her. And she seems to be the stupidest person I've ever seen in a superhero movie, including Otis.
On the other hand, I liked Brandon Routh. He's no Chris Reeve, but then again, he had so few lines it's hard to get a sense of the character. More bad writing. He seemed to only be there for the action sequences, which I thought he handled well, and glossed over during any character moments.
And why can't we say "the American way"? C'mon Hollywood.
I was basically PO'ed from the opening title card. Superman leaves Earth to go to Krypton?! WTF?! I don't buy it. I don't buy it for a second.
P.S. Can we please discuss the movie without mentioning the atrocity that I call "Smellville"? Thank you.
"And why can't we say "the American way"? C'mon Hollywood."
My impression was that it's such a cliche that they didn't want to say the whole line. Like how they said, "It's a bird," "It's a plane," "No, it's-" "You wanted to see me, Chief?" By cutting the line short, they make the audience think it instead of saying it.
I thought Metropolis General looked a bit like the hospital in Singer's "House".
That would've been a fun cameo. A near-dead Superman is just the sort of case House would take.
It might be cliche, but given that it was Perry saying it, and given the context of what he was saying, the histrionics with which he typically delivers his dialogue, I think it would've worked coming from him. One poster at nitcentral.com speculated that it was because it would not play as well overseas, but couldn't they just cut it out for foreign editions? They do that sort of thing already with culturally precarious material. (And was this a problem with the first Donner/Reeve movie?)
Someone else put it better than I ever could: "If you liked the first film, you'll love this".
Well I didn't like the first film. For all its bluster and all its SFX budget, I thought Donner's "Superman" was inferior to "Superman And The Mole Men" for entertainment delivered. And this film only has Spacey's performance to hang its hat on, because the only original idea in it is the paternity of the Lane kid - - and after two hours I didn't much care. Everything else is a rehash of the Donner film.
