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.
One very important note of historical context that I have not seen anyone address:
PAD attributes the serious moments in the original Superman movie to Mario Puzo's script. According the the documentaries included on the special edition DVD, this is inaccurate. Donner says that the Puzo script was juevinile and played Superman entirely for laughs. It was Donner who insisted on taking Superman and his world seriously. From the sound of things, the Puzo script was about as campy as the Adam West Batman.
Having Tom Mankewitz re-write the Puzo script is just one of many things Donner did right.
Bottom line, the movie was too long and slow paced. It really needed to be edited down to 2 hours.
First, sorry for the misspelling, Luigi. On Wednesday, I've got a laser procedure to eradicate a little cancer, so my mind hasn't been on things as much as it might.
Arco wrote 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...
But before that, he flew up and got that good dose of unfiltered yellow sun radiation and THEN flew down to move the kryptonite. I accepted that gave him the energry he needed to get most of the job done.
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.
I was hoping that the very last scene in the movie would be Clark and who-knows-who-else at the farm, 2 hours of screen time later, and then the dog comes in with the ball in his mouth, looking like he's been through a lot.
My personal plot hole that hasn't been mentioned yet is: didn't it seem like Lois was running a better investigation of the blackout than the power company? Usually they're pretty concerned about that kind of thing.
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? :-)"
But I'm not Superman. Supes isn't supposed to do those things to his dog. Lex Luthor's dog, maybe, but not his own.
Rick
PAD attributes the serious moments in the original Superman movie to Mario Puzo's script. According the the documentaries included on the special edition DVD, this is inaccurate. Donner says that the Puzo script was juevinile and played Superman entirely for laughs. It was Donner who insisted on taking Superman and his world seriously. From the sound of things, the Puzo script was about as campy as the Adam West Batman.
********************
I found a version of that script online years ago. Dear God! In fact, Gene Hackman deserves a lot of credit for making Lex Luthor as menacing as he does.
***************************
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.)
************************
Can someone really compare MAN OF STEEL to the Donner film and see any relation? Aside from the superficial differences, the 1978 Krypton is very much like the pre-Crisis version (even the whole "Krypton is doomed" speech).
And the revamped Superman had none of the "Superman as Christ" elements. One could argue that Byrne's Krypton was more akin to hell than heaven.
It is interesting to note that the movie concepts have had more an effect on the comics *now* than they did back in 1978.
***************
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.
***************
For some reason, I think I heard this on this board first but my recollection is that the plan was for Clark and Lois to marry in 1992 but this was postponed because of the upcoming TV series. They then killed him instead. What's weird is that the 1996 wedding is really last minute -- weren't Clark and Lois estranged for a while prior to it?
For some reason, I think I heard this on this board first but my recollection is that the plan was for Clark and Lois to marry in 1992 but this was postponed because of the upcoming TV series. They then killed him instead. What's weird is that the 1996 wedding is really last minute -- weren't Clark and Lois estranged for a while prior to it?
*************
You are correct. The death of Superman was a means to delay the wedding in the comics until the TV show caught up. Then, faced with declining ratings, the TV show rushed the wedding episode on the air unexpectedly. After dealying the wedding in the comics, DC suddenly had to rush to coordinate with the TV show. It was very awkward.
Luigi Novi wrote (at July 2, 2006 10:26 PM):
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. :-)
Fortunately, yellow stands out well enough against the white of snow that I can see the difference. Not that it would matter anyway, because I detest cold weather and haven't played in the snow for many, many years.
By the way, Luigi, I hope you don't mind my appropriating (with some modifications) your method of marking the quoted material that you're replying to -- I just thought it makes things stand out very well.
"Then, faced with declining ratings, the TV show rushed the wedding episode on the air unexpectedly."
I'd heard that it wasn't declining ratings that made the show rush to a wedding, it was Teri Hatcher's pregnancy.
here's my long-winded take on it (more reviews up every week at www.viewmag.com/film.php Pimpity pimp pimp pimp!) I had two biggie problems: first of all, I don't buy the central concept of Superman ditching on Earth, esp. considering how its a sequel to Superman II. Anyone remember how that ended? Second big problem is that thought it was a little too long-winded and lackadaisically paced for its own good. Reminded me of King Kong. There’s gold in there, pure gold, but offset by a lot of stuff you don’t care aboot. *ahem*
3 out of 5
Absent from the silver screen for decades, Superman flies back with Superman Returns. The movie is well meaning and earnest, just like Supes. Returns is a visual feast, wonderful to watch, and has FX moments that will leave your jaw on the floor. But it trips up a few times with a storyline and pace that takes forever to get moving, and a few too many wrong-headed plot twists. While sometimes Superman Returns will grab you, other times it bores you.
After over a decade of production woes and a revolving door of directors, stars, and scripts, Warner Brothers tapped Bryan Singer, the director who shepherded X-Men to the big screen, to bring back the Man of Steel. Singer and his writers have concocted a story about a Superman who left Earth for 5 years, and then returns to the life he left behind to continue his heroic deeds. Waiting for him is Lois Lane, now a mother, and Lex Luthor, out of prison, angrier than ever, and looking for revenge.
Singer's skills as a director are unparalleled. Visually speaking, his take is spectacular, befitting a hero like Superman. Singer always has an eye for a nice shot and small moments, and his handling of the effects sequences are top notch. If Superman flying was pulled off adequately in the 70s, than Superman flying in 2006 looks amazing. Singer’s Superman, realized with state of the art CGI, is a force of nature (or, uh, Krypton.).
Looking at the movie in small doses, Singer works some magic. But put it all together, he's a bit too in love with the subject matter and inconsequential moments that the audience can't get into. Sometimes, it feels as if we're being dragged by Superman, instead of soaring alongside.
Stepping into the considerable red boots of Christopher Reeve is Brandon Routh as Superman. He does an uncannily close job to Reeve's performance. His Clark is bumbling and goofy, and his Superman can be determined and ticked when called for, and Routh exudes a quality of goodness that is integral to the character. One of his best lines is after he saves a plane from crashing, he cheerily tells the passengers, "I hope this doesn't sour you on airlines, statistically it's still the safest way to travel." Very Reeve, and very goody-goody Superman.
Kate Bosworth is the intrepid Daily Planet reporter, Lois Lane, and she captures the determination and bull-headedness of Lois that makes her so oddly endearing. More problematic is the inclusion of her young son. The kid is decent and the part is interesting, but this is a franchise movie with an eye towards sequels . . . the inclusion of the kid throws a rather significant monkey wrench into the series storyline. It doesn't get in the way in this movie, but you could see it turning into a problem later on.
Kevin Spacey, reunited with director Singer for the first time since The Usual Suspects, plays a much darker Lex Luthor. His performance has a few touches of Gene Hackman's bombastic scenery chewing, but Spacey's Luthor is angrier and deadlier than before. While he's fun to watch, unfortunately, Lex is apart from Superman for most of the movie, leaving us testily wanting more of a showdown between the two.
One of the biggest problems is central to the plot, and the movie never overcomes it. As a Superman fan, I believe the premise of the movie is based around a fallacy: that Superman would just abandon all his responsibly and say "Seeya!" to Earth for 5 years. Considering how Returns is a direct sequel to Superman II, the movie where Superman said that he would never leave again, it makes swallowing the idea that he would run even more absurd. And when you learn what happened while he was gone from Earth for those years, makes him seem less Superman and more SuperDeadbeat Jerk,.
Another major problem is one of pacing. Its 155 minutes - over 2 and a half-hours and it really, really does not need to be this long. Early on there is a moment where Clark is reminiscing about how he first learned to fly - its nicely done, but serves zero purpose to the overall narrative. This scene is just a few more minutes that the movie didn’t need.
And that's just one example. Not only are there quite too many shots of Clark pinning and moping over Lois, but individual scenes are just a hair too long. Whenever a catastrophe strikes, the build-up before Superman sweeps in and saves everyone seems to go on and on.
There are also way too many scenes of Superman ever-so-slowly catching something, or slowly lifting something while John Williams' classic Superman theme music plays. The first time this happens is when Superman "returns" to the world with a spectacular plane rescue. When he stops the crash and the music swells, you feel like standing up and applauding. His return scene is so eye-popping, so well done, that any other scene of Superman slowly lifting heavy objects doesn't measure up. By the end, when the climax involves Superman slowly lifting something to save the day, it feels like you're watching "Superman's Astonishing Adventures in Shoulder Press Exercise".
Overall, Superman Returns reminds me of Peter Jackson's King Kong, a movie that had singular moments of transcendent movie magic that were offset by lots of bloat and directorial excess. A movie about Superman, and one that we have waited for so long for, should soar. Instead, Returns takes a much more mundane route. But, even with all the watch-watching boring moments, there are still other very stirring scenes where you will believe that a comic icon can live again onscreen.
This was a very, very strange movie.
I blame the script (which is bizarre on so many levels that I won't take space to go into them here) and the direction -- it looks to me as if Singer sat on his cast much as George Lucas sat on the Star Wars ensemble in the last couple of movies. Moreover, the movie goes to spectacular lengths to keep the characters from actually resolving their interpersonal issues -- the one relationship in the movie that actually goes somewhere is that between Luthor and Kitty, and that's just bizarre.
I'd very much like to see this cast in a solidly scripted Superfilm that gives them some room to stretch. This was not that movie.
"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."
To be fair, you were almost thirty years younger, and any subsequent viewings are going to be through the prism of the person you were back then.
PAD
Actually, I think jrains has a point. The best of the dramatic Superman incarnations -- in particular the first Christopher Reeve film and much of the run of Lois & Clark -- have a distinct quality that I can best describe as "sparkle". Even Smallville at times exhibits this quality, though not so consistently.
Superman Returns doesn't have it; insead, there's an almost palpable void where the sparkle ought to be.
I think I'm with PAD on this one. Expectations and lack of nostalgia probably account for any lack of "sparkle". The new movie had several emotional moments. When the next round of Superman movies get started 30 years from now, the people who are only 8 years old today are going to talk about the "sparkle" that Superman Returns had but Superman 2040 doesn't have.
"My personal plot hole that hasn't been mentioned yet is: didn't it seem like Lois was running a better investigation of the blackout than the power company? Usually they're pretty concerned about that kind of thing."
Yeah, that's the one thing that bothered me, too. Why is it that she's the only one who found the source of the EMP? Wouldn't the FBI or SOMEBODY be interested in the source of a giant EMP that wreaked untold havoc?
How do you know she was the only one investigating the blackout? We didn't see what the FBI was doing and we didn't see what the power company was doing. There could be a whole pile of corpses under Lex's boat.
They could have added a scene where Lex hacks into the power company's computer and messes up their information. It's not really necessary, though.
Yeah, that's how I rationalized it to myself, too. It's still a rather important part of the plot that somehow got ignored, thoug.
" It's still a rather important part of the plot that somehow got ignored, thoug."
Not really. Whether or not the power company is doing a good job is pretty irrelevant to the story.
What Lois is going through is important, but I don't think anyone would have enjoyed the movie more if they'd seen more of Larry at Metropolis Electric. Lois was a good enough reporter to go after the right story when everyone else told her to ignore it. That's all that matters.
Robin S.: By the way, Luigi, I hope you don't mind my appropriating (with some modifications) your method of marking the quoted material that you're replying to -- I just thought it makes things stand out very well.
Luigi Novi: Hey, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And besides, I doubt I'm the first to use bold quotes.
You wouldn't be the first person to do either. About a dozen or so of my fellow visitors at Nitcentral.com began aping my habit of using funny headings to preface each "nit" when nitpicking Star Trek epsiodes. :-)
"Not really. Whether or not the power company is doing a good job is pretty irrelevant to the story."
Yes, but the EMP seemingly being ignored by the authorities isn't irrelevant. If they had a scene showing Lex milking a dying widow out of her fortune (which really wasn't that important), they could have had a scene showing how he deals with any police who come snooping. That's all I'm saying.
The opening scene with the old lady is an introduction to Lex and shows the audience what kind of scumbag he is. That may seem obvious, but there have been lots of versions of Lex and it's important to establish his character at the beginning of the movie.
There's no need to go back to that in the middle of the movie. The audience already knows that he's evil scum. He's willing to risk Kitty's life, so nobody in the audience would be surprised that he's willing to con the power company.
The audience didn't need to see a scene explaining why the old lady had a model of Metropolis in her basement.
The audience didn't need to see what Jimmy Olsen has been up to for the last 5 years.
The audience didn't need to know why Martha Kent was the only one who noticed a meteor hitting her farm.
Robert, I understand that you're curious about that one detail. However, there are a million other people who are curious about a 100 other details. There's no need to slow the movie down to a 4 hour crawl explaining things the audience is smart enough to figure out on its own.
"...the scene toward the end with Superman and the sleeping Jason is, quite simply, the best Superman scene ever committed to film." PAD
I totally agree.
Some say it was creepy(him entering the kid's room at night), but that scene almost made me cry. I understood why the director wanted to use the voice of Brando. Superman told his kid what his father told him and also what his adopted mother said to him earlier. I'm 28 and my wife and I are considering having a child in the next year or so and this father-son moment really have an impact on me.
At first I was a little disappointed with the movie overall, but after thinking about the movie for a while I realized that it was because my expectations where really really high. After reading your review I want to see it again.
A friend and I were discussing the point of Jason in the movie. He felt that Jason was unnecessary, but I have to wonder if Jason was the whole point of the movie.
Supes left the Earth to go back to Krypton to find out if there were any other Kryptonians. He saw himself as the last of his kind, he was alone. Only it turned out that very thing he was looking for in outer space (another Kryptonian)was here on earth in the form of a son. In a way, his trek to find the connection cost him (or nearly cost him) the connection he was looking for. The Lex stuff, even the Lois, stuff was only there to move Supes/Jason storyline ahead. You could have had any villian with a scheme and kryptonite and still told the "real" theme of the movie.
Posted by: Kim Metzger at July 3, 2006 10:16 AM
On Wednesday, I've got a laser procedure to eradicate a little cancer, so my mind hasn't been on things as much as it might.
Kim, I haven't seen Superman Returns, leaving me without a valid reason to comment in this thread -- until I read your post. I sincerely hope your cancer is as minor as you've characterized it, and your treatment and recovery are as speedy and comfortable as possible.
Kim, like Bill Meyers I was avoiding the thread but I decided to read Bill's opinion on the movie, safe in the assumption that it would be spoiler free.
Best wishes to you. It sounds like a minor procedure but the word "cancer" is scary even when preceded by the word "little". Take care.
Superman defeats Lex Luthor!
There. I spoiled the ending without even having seen the movie or talking with anyone who has. Let the hate-emails begin.
(While I'm at it, the Titanic sinks and Anakin Skywalker turns into Darth Vader. I know, I know. I'm such a bastard.)
Rosebud was his sled.
There. I just saved you two long, boobless hours.
I'm having trouble deciding which is the better parent..
We have Superman.. who has sex with Lois and then gives her the "Date Rape" kiss. And then like a lot of todays fathers.. he ditches the girl and leaves her to raise the kid.. taking no responsibility.
We have Lois.. who takes her son with her to investigate the cause of a major disturbance. She tresspasses onto property with son in tow. And when her son does something strange (it was off camara, so I might let her have this one) she doesn't say anything about it or question how.
We have Richard White.. who stops at nothing to find his son. Who places the lives of others before himself.. who seems to have the worst luck with superheroes wanting his woman (first Wolverine, now Superman. I'm wondering if he shows up in Spider-Man 3 as Gwen Stacey's boyfriend)
SUPERior parent - Richard White
"He's willing to risk Kitty's life, so nobody in the audience would be surprised that he's willing to con the power company."
Okay, you need to stop talking about the damn power company. When did I ever mention the power company? What I said was that there was a huge EMP that wiped out power for all electronic devices and caused who knows how many problems and deaths, and Lois was the only person who seemed to care. This is not a little detail that I'm just "curious" about. This is a major plot point. There should have been police banging on Luther's door. It would not have slowed the movie down to show how he got out of that. It's part of the story that the film is telling.
I'm not sure why you're so defensive about it anyway, since I clearly liked the movie a lot more than you did.
"Okay, you need to stop talking about the damn power company."
Why are you getting upset? You didn't mention the power company, but DonBoy did, and then you said you agreed with him. Thus, it's reasonable for me to mention the power company.
As for the police, I didn't mention that up until now because I didn't think there was any need to. I've lived through several power outages in my life, and I've never once heard of a police investigation into them. There was a mojor power outage in New York a couple of years back. It lasted several hours instead of the couple of minutes that we saw in the movie. I never saw anything about a police investigation of that, either.
Where exactly did you get the idea that the police would investigate something like this? Power outages are not uncommon, there actually have been a few that affected multiple states, and they've always been the responsibility of the power companies. Not police.
I'm not getting defensive about this. I'm just explaining my position. However, you seem to be getting agitated, Robert. Relax, it's not that big a deal.
Rick Keating: But I'm not Superman. Supes isn't supposed to do those things to his dog.
Luigi Novi: Says who? It's a harmless bit of fun with one's pet animal, an animal that does not perceive the act as "cruelty" toward it. (Or was this another joke?)
Rick Keating: Lex Luthor's dog, maybe, but not his own.
Luigi Novi: And why is this? It's cruel to "Krypto", but cruel to another dog, simply because that other dog belongs to a scumbag? What the sins of the owner are visited upon the canine, or something? :-)
Jason M. Bryant: I've lived through several power outages in my life, and I've never once heard of a police investigation into them. There was a mojor power outage in New York a couple of years back. It lasted several hours instead of the couple of minutes that we saw in the movie. I never saw anything about a police investigation of that, either.
Luigi Novi: No, but someone had to investigate it so as to determine its cause, whether it was the FBI, the police, the NSA, Con Ed, or whoever. That Lois manages to track it to Luthor's lair but the authorities for some reason do not is indeed a big plot hole, IMO.
"That Lois manages to track it to Luthor's lair but the authorities for some reason do not is indeed a big plot hole, IMO."
I can concede that it's a plot hole. I don't see how it's a *big* plot hole. We all know that Lex foiling the police is like me brushing my teeth. It happens, he moves on.
However, I do see that you think it's a plot hole, even if I'd call it a minor plot hole.
My point isn't that it's not a plot hole, my point is that it isn't worth spending screen time on. Nobody would be surprised by Lex foiling the police. There's no character development to be had from spending time on this. Showing the police tracking the power outage would be repeating some of the stuff that Lois does in the film, essentially playing the same scenes twice.
Showing Lex foiling the police would fill the plot hole, but it would hurt momentum. Momentum is incredibly important in a movie. Sure, they could have filled this hole.
They could also have shown the Smallville police going to check on Martha Kent after a meteor landed in her field. They could have spent time on the FEDs showing up after the weapon was stolen from the Russians. There are several other things they could have spent time on also, but adding an extra 15 minutes to the movie to explain several minor plot holes wouldn't have been worth it.
By the way, what was the time frame for the movie? From the power outage to Lois getting on the boat, how many days passed? If we don't have a clear indication, then what are our guesses for min time and max time?
"Where exactly did you get the idea that the police would investigate something like this? Power outages are not uncommon, there actually have been a few that affected multiple states, and they've always been the responsibility of the power companies. Not police."
It wasn't just a power outage. It knocked out ALL electronics, including the space shuttle. That's a huge deal. And here we have a newspaper reporter tracking down its source before anyone else does. It just felt slightly wrong to me, but it didn't really bother me that much.
Ok, I have to admit I just didn't read everything in this thread because, it's really, really long. So please forgive me if I repeat anything here.
First off, let's look at the movie itself. The movie rocks. It's got heart and action. Is it absolutely perfect? It's every bit as perfect as any movie involving superheroes can be. Think "Batman Begins" is better? Well, that is if you are ok with your character not saving someone when they normally would. At the end when Bats tells Rha's Al Ghul that he doesn't have to save him all three of my friends and I screamed "Yes you do! You're Batman!". At least Superman isn't out of character. And at least Superman Returns didn't bore me to tears as Batman Begins did.
Lois' memory? I don't really care. I'm sure there is an explanation somewhere in the movie or in the next one. More important was the fact that Lois chose the best possible husband and father. Richard White is every bit as heroic as Big Blue. Thus, Superman smartly leaves Jason in his and Lois' hands.
Luthor's plot? Well we even have a real-life example of hubris coming up with a plan that will end up hurting the person who implements it and makes no sense. He lives in the White House.
Personally considering people who claim to be comics fans don't have a problem with a hero murdering someone or with the crap that DiDio has pulled at DC over the last 5 years but will have a problem with a movie that was faithful and respectful of our passions, I don't have a positive view of the future of the superhero trade. I mean, did no one just enjoy the movie? Let themselves go be 5 or 6 or 10 years old again for a couple of hours? If you couldn't do that, with all the crap in the world, I think I feel sorry for you.
One more note. Brandon Routh being compared to Christopher Reeve isn't really fair. Reeve had 20 additional years and the aftermath of his accident to build his legend in our heads and hearts. Routh did the absolute best he could. For me, outside of Reeve, Routh is Superman.
Michael
Eric Recla:I'm having trouble deciding which is the better parent..
We have Superman.. who has sex with Lois and then gives her the "Date Rape" kiss. And then like a lot of todays fathers.. he ditches the girl and leaves her to raise the kid.. taking no responsibility.
Unfair description of Supes. He didn't "ditch the girl and leaves her to raise the kid." He didn't know about the kid until her returned. In fact, he didn't know about having a son until the end of the movie.
And calling that a "date rape" kiss is an mischaracterization. "Date rape" isn't about erasing a willing partner's memory after the fact. It is not rape by any definition. Erasing her memory in the second movie might be an unethical action, but it's not rape-like.
I have to say the film left me seriously underwhelmed on a few main points. The most important to me was character development; I completely missed the human drama that Peter and so many other reviewers cite (sorry, Peter, I usually would be the last to argue with your talent for writing and recognizing good character drama, but I sure didn't find it in this movie). None of the characters go anywhere in terms of personality, except perhaps for Lois as she accepts Superman back into her life. I think Routh could handle Superman/Clark character drama admirably, yet there really is none to be found. He reacts to the three main dramatic points of the movie--his return to Krypton, Lex's plot and attack on him, and Lois having moved on without him--with little emotion and no conclusive closure at the end of the film. Richard White had zero depth as a character, and I honestly found Jason rather annoying most of the time. Arguably, Lex's character shows some development, but it is only a weirdly jarring transition from a darkly comical bwa-ha-ha villain to sudden violent vengeance; his sudden attack on Superman just didn't go with how Spacey had played the character up to that point.
Furthermore, I felt like we waited twenty-five years (thirty? I'm not sure how long it's been) and then sat in the theater for two and a half hours of a movie that really went nowhere. Superman gets rid of Lex's continent, but then doesn't go back to confront him again? Where was the character-to-character confrontation between these two? Superman said ONE LINE to Lex and then got his ass kicked. ONE LINE! And he doesn't at least show up to haul Lex back off to the slammer? Furthermore, we only get a teaser to what's going to happen with Jason, and no closure as to whether or not Lois knows whose kid it really is. Am I the only one who left the theater feeling cheated and disappointed?
The central problem with this movie is that, as Peter said, it's placing itself in the middle of a series of movies that was made decades ago. The movies were good, people loved them, but they weren't perfect and they are entirely unknown to a lot of the young audience today. In my opinion the old continuity should have been dumped, and the story should have been retold for a new audience in a method akin to Mark Waid's amazing "Birthright" or the excellent "Batman Begins". Unfortunately, it looks like we'll have to wait out another couple of Singer films and then an intervening decade or so before anyone gets around to taking that particular route.
Here's another question: How come Lois is the one who figures out where the power outage started? Clark is supposed to be working on that story, and he's at least as good a reporter as Lois! And what kind of reporter gets an address and doesn't check on the ownership before going there? And leaves her cell phone behind? Things like this add up over the course of a 5 hour movie.
"Clark is supposed to be working on that story"
Well, they showed Clark trying to convince Perry that Lois should be on the story. I got the impression that he backed off because Lois wanted it so badly.
Plus, actually working on the story would have cut into his staring-at-Lois time.
"At the end when Bats tells Rha's Al Ghul that he doesn't have to save him all three of my friends and I screamed "Yes you do! You're Batman!". At least Superman isn't out of character."
How is that out of character? Where in the movie does he say that he would never let a criminal die? If you're saying it's out of character from the comic book version, well, your case is even weaker. Golden Age Batman routinely killed the bad guys.
I do agree that the movie is boring, though (as well as incoherent and silly).
"How is that out of character? Where in the movie does he say that he would never let a criminal die? If you're saying it's out of character from the comic book version, well, your case is even weaker. Golden Age Batman routinely killed the bad guys."
Yes, Batman killed bad guys in the early days. He even shot at them with guns from time to time.
Since then, the character has had a strict "no killing" policy. It's a significant part of the character at this point. The line between killing someone and letting him die is a little thin, so a few people had a problem with that scene in Batman Begins. Some of us also had problem with the Batmobile chase where he destroyed those police cars.
I didn't like it, but I accepted it. It's a minor quibble in a movie that I liked overall. Like you said, this movie didn't draw that line as solidly as the comics have in the last few decades.
Okay, I realize I'm behind, but I just went to see Superman Returns today. It's the Fourth of July, I hadn't seen it yet, and I was off work, so I figured there'd be no better time to catch it.
I LOVED it.
I really really LOVED it.
I wouldn't rank it above Spider-Man 2 on the list of my favorite comic book films, but this one will be way up there. It helps that Superman is my #2 favorite comic book hero.
First of all, Christopher Reeve will always be Superman to me. Brandon Routh did an admirable job filling those red boots, and I thought his performance was great. I would have liked to see a little bit more of Brandon Routh's take on the character, and less mimicking of Reeves' take on the character, but I enjoyed it regardless.
Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane was good. She is probably the most attractive Lois Lane I've seen, but then again, I don't buy her as a mother to Jason at all. She just didn't sell Lois as a mother. I think Bosworth and Routh had great chemistry, but I wish Bosworth's Lois had been a tad more feisty and playful like Kidder.
Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor was a highlight. Spacey plays Luthor perfectly: greedy selfish corporate player who hates Superman because he's an alien and because Superman is above Luthor's control, and Luthor is all about control and power. That said, I would have liked to have seen more of an extended confrontation between Luthor and Superman. The scene with Luthor and Superman lasted about five minutes in a film lasting 170+ minutes.
Oh, and about the whole "Superman lifting the Kryptonite crystal land mass" issue...it doesn't bother me. Here's my take. Superman tunneled underneath all of the Kryptonite crystal. There's a good chance that there was a concentration of lead in the earth that shielded Superman as he lifted the land mass. If you noticed, big chunks of dirt and rocks came falling off the bottom of the mass as Superman carried it higher. My take is that Superman used the natural amounts of lead in the soil and rocks to shield him from the brunt of the radiation, and only as he climbed higher was Kryptonite exposed, weakening him: the higher he flew, the weaker he became, and he fell to Earth.
The music...nuff said. :)
There were plenty of Superman rescues in this film, and when I plop down six bucks to catch a matinee playing a Superman flick, I want to see him performing daring rescues. This did not disappoint.
I'm sure if I sat and thought about it and picked it apart, I'd find more to complain about, but you know what? I honestly walked out of that theater today believing in Superman and what he represents. That's a good feeling.
Final thought: That scene with Superman and Jason at the end truly was the best Superman scene ever filmed. My father passed away six years ago. Watching Superman standing there, smiling, so taken amazed at the wonderful gift that is his child..."The son becomes the father and the father becomes the son"...I admit that I became quite teary-eyed watching that scene. So incredibly moving.
I don't see how allowing Rha's to die is out of character for Batman. Rha's was threatening both Batman's life, and the lives of everyone in Gotham. He had to get off the train himself before it crashed, so saving Rha's would've been above and beyond anything Batman was required to do.
Tom Keller
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?
That part of the 'new' outfit didn't bother me. Routh looks scrawny enough - a large S would've made made him look even smaller. Thru all of "Lois & Clark" I was wishing they'd drop the size of the shield because Dean Cain always looked bigger wearing anything other than the Superman outfit.
What bothered me the most about the outfit - the red inside the S on his belt. I think it would've looked better if the whole thing was gold/yellow.
Can someone please explain to me the scene where Lois and Jason are trapped in that room on the ship, and she asks Jason for help. He's sitting there looking at his hands, and the tips of his fingers look like they're swollen green. At first I thought he had shoved his hand in a jar of something and was thinking about eating it, the way he was staring at his fingers I thought he'd lost his mind.
Was the swollen green look from when he waved away Lex's bit of kryptonite? At first I thought he was immune to kryptonite, but i'm guessing his burst of power was taken away by the growing city.
Oh, and here's kudos to the writers for not killing off Lex at the end...for some reason comic movie writers seem to take great joy killing off the bad guys that have been around for decades in just under or over 2 hours (re: Batman/Spider-Man movies).
"He's sitting there looking at his hands, and the tips of his fingers look like they're swollen green."
That confused me too. I'm kind of thinking there was a deleted scene of something happening to his fingers. At first I just thought he'd put some olives on the ends of them while playing around, but they never cleared up exactly what happened.
Oh, and incidentally...
In my post above, I make reference to Superman Returns being "170+ minutes" long. I don't know what I was thinking, except that apparently it didn't involve math. :-) The film was about 145 minutes long.
Let's put it this way: I went to a showing at 11:30am. I didn't walk out of the theater until 2:15pm.
But I loved every minute of it.
Carry on...
I'll agree with the 'deleted scene' comment. It looked like they chopped something between the time Lois asked her son to help and when he was sitting on the ground. Maybe they decided not to even attempt any more jr. supes stuff from him. But giving me a taste of it (piano) I was begging for it the rest of the movie. Especially when they were trapped and sinking. They showed that window/hatch so often I was like "SMASH IT OPEN SUPERBOY!"
I think I prefer the portrayal of Clark Kent passing as Superman by saying and showing less of himself, as opposed to someone who is naturally Superman putting up the front of a bumbling Clark Kent. Kal-El is different and no amount of power or glory can compensate for his need for love. This gives Superman a Kierkegaardian quality. I think this depiction makes the character more engaging in spite of the quality of Reeve's performance.
Singer did a similar thing in X2, where Pyro tries to introduce himself by giving Magneto his civilian name when, no, what Magneto wanted was his real name. I'm not particularly a fan of Singer as a director, but I like the subversive nods he gives to those who understand the difficulty of moderating their behavior to fit. You get so repressed you stop being sure who you really are.
Metropolis however isn't the world of the X-Men, where Superman can be himself among an adoptive family of superheroes. As alienated as the X-Men are, Superman is denied the intimacy they enjoy. When Lois and Richard laugh at Clark Kent, they are laughing at Superman as he really is, different and exposed and lonely. "Clark is the same height and build as Superman -- so what's his excuse?"
Singer's Clark Kent is Superman when he lets his guard down: only as Clark Kent is Superman truly free. I think it's as good a portrayal of Superman as we could have hoped to have seen.
The StarWolf: 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?
Because DC's already written most of Byrne's run on Supes out of current continuity. I mean, even before Infinite Crisis, Byrne's Superman reboot had aready been more-or-less retconned out via Waid's 'Birthright.' If the vast majority of Supes' existence is the non-Byrne, 'classical' version, then it shouldn't come as a big surprise that the big screen version sticks with the 'classical' Superman. And if you HAD gone with a complete reboot, you would've had to do the entire origin story over again, which would be pointless since it'd already been done (and done well, in my opinion) in "Superman: The Movie." If you agree that the first two were good, it makes more sense to relaunch the franchise by picking up the existing threads rather than inventing whole new cloth... after all, James Bond's gotten 20-odd movies out of that trick.
I went back and watched it again today on the 4th. A few things I noticed regarding quibbles mentioned above:
The thing on Lois' desk was an announcement of Lois' winning the Pulitzer Prize, not the actual prize itself.
The thing that fell out of Lois' purse was not a cell phone, but was Lois' tape recorder (a fact emphasized by Superman telling her exactly where it is during their Daily Planet rooftop scene), so I don't think Clark's secret identity is in danger due to a misfiring cell camera... though I admit that'd be a fun plot device.
Superman's shield, while not making an appearance on the back of his cape, does make its appearance on the backs of his boots. I guess maybe he found some bling on Krypton?
As PAD notes, Jason is wearing Aquaman PJs during the final scene... what I want to know is why there was no confrontation between Lois and Supes about why the son of the Man of Steel was doing product placement for the weakest guy on the SuperFriends roster instead of for dear old dad.
Like in "Batman Begins," where all the cars in that movie had license plates that read 'Gotham,' all the plates in "SR" read 'Metropolis.' A nice touch, coupled with the mention of Gotham City during the Superman coverage, that makes me think Warner Brothers is going to bum-rush a "World's Finest" movie into production ASAP.
On the second viewing, I found I still enjoyed the movie as much as the first time around, even with all the plot holes and the gripes and nitpicks that I've read about since the first viewing.. The one thing I left with in my mind this time out was that the movie can only be considered a sequel, and it's obviously designed to produce more sequels. "Superman Returns" left so many plot threads dangling that it screams for closure, and despite the 'poor' box office performance it's still making lots of bank for Warner/DC (maybe half of the showtimes at the Mall of Georgia, where I went to see it today, were sold out... the theater I was in was nearly full), so it's reasonable to assume a "Superman's Still Here!" will follow, with maybe a "Superman Kicks The Crap Out Of Batman" after that.
One other thing... would it have hurt to put the dedication to Chris and Dana Reeve right after the final scene, and before the credits?
Hey, does any one have any comments on what will happen to the mass of crystals superman threw out of earth?
Here's my theory. That will be a new planet krypton cuz the crystals kitty dropped are still on it. It was still growing in size when superman pushed it out.Quoting what Lex said, "the crystals will do something with the surounding particles or something"....I wondering what space will do to it. New planet! or like in Justice league, their base!
I said: "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."
PAD said: "To be fair, you were almost thirty years younger, and any subsequent viewings are going to be through the prism of the person you were back then."
Really, that is more than a stellar point, even though I am only 20. I did love the Superman movies as a kid, and remember even wathcing the fourth one over and over again.
I guess the movie that I think makes a good point of comparison is Willy Wonka/Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It was one of my favorite books as a child, but the old movie always bored me to tears. There were some parts I liked, but even as a little kid I hated the singing, with the exception of the Oompa Loopas. I greatly enjoyed the Tim Burton version though, while most of my friends could not see how I could watch it without seeing how vastly superior the old one was.
Really though, I was looking for more from Superman Returns. What I wanted was something like the LOTR or Spider-Man movies, that produced a real feeling and gave me that special feeling. What I got was a decent Superman, but not something I will revisit as much as say X-Men 2.
One of the friends I saw the movie with made a point about the boy... We never actually see him do anything super. We're only under the impression that its Superman's.. but they have it set up where if the public cried too much, they could easily correct it.
I'm also wondering if the five year absence was made that particular timeframe so Superman was off planet during 9/11.
This thread is as long as the movie so forgive me if I repeat an observation that has been made but: The glaring problem I had was the young Clark Kent. Please tell my why (before assuming his secret identity) did he need glasses.
To establish that Superman is a role Clark Kent plays, as opposed to Clark Kent being the role Superman plays.
This thread is as long as the movie so forgive me if I repeat an observation that has been made but: The glaring problem I had was the young Clark Kent. Please tell my why (before assuming his secret identity) did he need glasses.
************************
If you have a child who is growing stronger and stronger by the day, who never breaks a bone (despite living and working on a farm) and never even so much as misses a day of school due to a cold, you are going to want to come up with ways to alleviate suspicion, to make the child seem "normal." That's where the glasses come in.
That's why I always thought Tom Welling should have worn glasses as Clark Kent on "Smallville". Glasses work not just as a "disguise" but as evidence of human frailty (poor vision).
"If you have a child who is growing stronger and stronger by the day, who never breaks a bone (despite living and working on a farm) and never even so much as misses a day of school due to a cold, you are going to want to come up with ways to alleviate suspicion, to make the child seem "normal." That's where the glasses come in.
That's why I always thought Tom Welling should have worn glasses as Clark Kent on "Smallville". Glasses work not just as a "disguise" but as evidence of human frailty (poor vision)."
Yeah, but this is a "sequel" to the Reeve movies. Jeff East did not wear them as Clark.
I think a lot has been played in the media about reusing the music and the Brando footage to distract from the fact that this is a major, I think better, reinterpretation of the character. I think we were sold a "sequel" to ease the audience into the changes.
I found a whole bunch of little things wrong with the movie - did they really need to illustrate what a dog eat dog world is like? Was it really necessary to turn a 5 year old boy into a murderer? And if a Superman without a piece of Kryptonite embedded in his skin could barely stand up, how did he lift up a freakin' island into space? Plus, that plane and everyone on it should have been smashed to little bits and pieces, instead of walking away completely conscious and without a scratch. And why couldn't Luthor just make his new continent in the middle of the Atlantic, rather than overrun North America? To get rid of the competition? Lastly, Where was Luthor's superior Kryptonian Tech? Hiding underneath the waterfall?
So yeah, lot's of holes - which are pointless to discuss, 'cuase I still loved the damn movie and look forward to seeing it again.
BarryDubya
"So yeah, lot's of holes - which are pointless to discuss, 'cuase I still loved the damn movie and look forward to seeing it again. "
I also loved the movie, but I also love pointless discussions.
"I also loved the movie, but I also love pointless discussions."
Then the Internet must be like heaven for you. :-)
"I would’ve stated that the Clown guy was just knocked unconscious."
Based on the Jason character (who had asthma and other maladies) it seems that (unlike the first Superman movie), Kryptonian children don't manifest all of their powers as soon as they land on earth - they develop over time. So it's reasonable to assume that young Clark needed glasses, until his powers fully kicked in, as shown in the flashback sequence, when he turned to look at his glasses as he was hovering in midair, as if to say "don't need those suckers anymore!"
Of course, Jason was about 10 years younger than Clark was, but then we get into that "thinkig too much about realm" again...
Jason lashed (shoved or pushed) out in anger (though Jason is about as expressive as a soggy piece of toast) to save his mother from certain death...the killing was at least justified, it's possible Superman himself has some skeletons in his closet.
BarryDubya said: "Based on the Jason character (who had asthma and other maladies) it seems that (unlike the first Superman movie), Kryptonian children don't manifest all of their powers as soon as they land on earth - they develop over time. So it's reasonable to assume that young Clark needed glasses, until his powers fully kicked in, as shown in the flashback sequence, when he turned to look at his glasses as he was hovering in midair, as if to say 'don't need those suckers anymore!'"
That's not how I interpret these things. First, Jason isn't a Kryptonian; he's a hybrid of a Kryptonian and a Terran. The fact that he hadn't displayed superhuman powers before then has no bearing on whether Clark had superhuman powers the moment he arrived.
The glasses are simply a continuity glitch. The 1979 movie clearly shows him without glasses until he heads to the artic to "build" the Fortress of solitude. However, that's a small thing and if they work for you, then I would suggest just ignoring their lack in the 1979 film and going with it.
Couple of comments with the Kryptonite/Contininte lifting
(1) he had just super charged himself with solar energey (not just recovering from the kryptonite but at maximum chargeable strnegth-sort of like in All-Star Superman)
(2) He had gone very deep where the Kryptonite had not yet gotten ton. It continues to go deeper and deeper as he lifts it eventually getting close to him, and starts having more of an effect
(3)The effort practically kills him, especially when it finally reaches the bottom near Superman
(4) It is something of a comic book thing that the hero beats impossible odds-say Superman killing Doomsday even as he is killed, Spider-man lifting the machinery off of him in that classic scene, though pinned, Spider-man beating Firelord through force of will, Captain America being the last man standing against THanos and the Infinity Gauntlet, etc.
Was it really necessary to turn a 5 year old boy into a murderer?
****
Killing someone is not always murder. and certainly not in a life and death situation with an instinctual reaction by a child with a 5 year old brain (and the diminished capacity that goes with it) who feels threatened.
Largely agree with Peter's (and others') review of the film, so I won't detail my thoughts on that. Overall I enjoyed the film, but it certainly is flawed. I liked it better than Superman (1978), which i loved at the time (as a 16-year old kid) but which has aged poorly imo. My biggest problem with SR is that i can't even consider a sequel to I & II, but more of a remake of Superman I. I found it painfully derivative even though I think Singer did a better job of it than Donner.
Anyway, I only skimmed the above comments so this might have been discussed already, but if so i missed it...
Continuity inconsistencies re: Lois' memory notwithstanding, the film raises several intriguing questions about Lois' son Jason. I thought that Jason shoving the piano was the first use of his power - with Lois surprised by it - but my wife is convinced (and since convinced me) that Lois knew all along that Jason was Superman's son and that all of the kid's frailties (his asthma, etc.) are essentially a cover to hide his powers. When she introduces Jason to Clark in the newsroom, she even says something about him growing up to be strong like his "father" - whom we are led to assume is Richard, but is actually Superman. But iirc, Lois never actually says that Richard is the father - and nor does Richard actually call Jason his son, though he's obviously raising the boy as his own. Good use of ambiguity there.
Anyone else pick up on this?
Ray
Ah, my last post is unclear. Lois of course knows that Jason is Superman's kid - she says as much to Superman at the hospital - but it's unclear if she knows that he has Superman's powers until the piano scene. My wife, at least, believes that she's well aware that he's "Superboy" and that she's been trying to hide it with a fake inhaler, etc.
There are hints throughout the film that Lois knows Jason is Clark's, such as when Luthor asks and she seems to hesitate before hastily answering 'Richard'. But I don't think Jason's asthma was fake, as evidenced by his asthmatic reaction to when he noticed Clark and Superman looked alike, Lois about to get her head bashed in and his urgent need for the inhaler. I just think his powers hadn't kicked in yet until he became a piano man.
Responding to the 'murder' post above, whether Jason's actions were justified/legal or not, the fact is, he killed a man. Regardless of age, that's not something that can ever be changed. While it is possible that was done deliberately for possible use in a sequel, if it wasn't, I don't see any reason why one of the other thugs couldn't have just said "We think (thug's name) is dead.", making it not so definitive and thereby not making a five year old a killer.
I don't weep for the thugs death. I barely even noticed.
"I don't weep for the thugs death."
*Nobody* cares about the thug. Whether or not the thug deserves to die isn't the issue.
Whether or not a child would be traumatised by being an executioner, that's a significant issue. Since full grown adults have problems being executioners in state executions, it's a reasonable concern.
Some people aren't bothered by it, some people are. They could have had a scene everyone liked if they had done something that beat the crap out of the thug without killing him.
About the glasses, it's not a continuity error at all. The boy in Returns is clearly younger than the teenage Clark in the first movie, and if I remember correctly we never seen him any younger than that in the first movie, except for when he emerges from the spacecraft. So who's to say the young Clark didn't wear glasses?
Everyone hear has overlooked the biggest movie flaw of all - one based on good old physics. That beautiful scene where Jesus in a Cape is floating over the world listening to all our prayers? Listening? Sound in space? Space is a vacuum. Sound has to be propagated through a medium. He can't do that in the comics because its not possible. Its like shooting a beam with your eyes and rebuilding the Great Wall of China. Nonsense, like most of the movie.
"We never seen him"? Whoa, how'd that slip in there?
For those of you who haven't seen the flick in IMAX 3-D, go now and do so! The four scenes in 3-D are amazing, and you really won't care about continuity or plot holes while watching them! Unfortunately, you don't get the Spidey 3 trailer, but you do get several 3-D previews. It's worth the second mortgage, kids!
OK. After reading these posts, I feel cheated. My theater did not show a Spider-Man 3 trailer.
Are the 3d glasses clear or red and blue (IMAX 3d). Unfortunately red in my left eye doesn't work correctly so normal 3d glasses don't work at all.
Ray, I thought Jason's weaknesses might be fake too ("I know this will sound idiotic, Superman, but the best way to hide his powers is by making him look weak and helpless.").
I agree that Spacey's scheme was a retread of Luthor's landgrab from the original movie, but I found building an entire continent and flooding the east coast of America considerably more in the Luthor spirit than just launching a missile. And thank God, less camp (I rate the original a lot lower because of that quality, though it bothers me less rewatching today).
In that vein, if they had to give Luthor another female sidekick, I wish they'd swiped Mercy from the Dini/Timm cartoons. Posey does well, but there's no point.
Yes, other characters have been affected by their non-comic book appearances: Wonder Woman started doing retconned Earth II World War II stories when the TV series set her in that era; the Bat-books resurrected Alfred when the TV series brought him back (it also boosted the Riddler into the ranks of the top villains, when he'd never been more than second-string before); and Harley Quinn migrated from Dini/Timm to the comics continuity.
Me, despite the flaws (I agree with whoever said that even if solar exposure can explain Supes withstanding the kryptonite, that sort of misses the point of kryptonite) I liked it. For a two and a half hour film it flew by.
One thing I really liked is Superman's whirlwind stints where he's stopping sixteen crimes or disasters in a matter of seconds.
krighton:
IMAX 3D is the polarized kind of 3D -- no red and green.
Does anyone still do the red and green anymore? (And speaking of which I wonder what ever became of Ray Zone?)
1They could have had a scene everyone liked if they had done something that beat the crap out of the thug without killing him.
*****
So a massive assault and battery would be ok, as long as he didn't die?
Re the inhaler: it could be that being near the crystals kicked his powers in somehow, and that he really did need the inhaler otherwise. We already saw that kryptonite had no effect, so we know he doesn't work the same way as a Kryptonian.
Sound has to be propagated through a medium. He can't do that in the comics because its not possible. Its like shooting a beam with your eyes and rebuilding the Great Wall of China. Nonsense, like most of the movie.
******
It's called fun. Like explosions/noise in Star Trek and Star Wars. I'm not interested in real world physics when i go to see a movie about a guy who can will himself to fly.
"So a massive assault and battery would be ok, as long as he didn't die?"
Yes. Knocking the guy unconscious can be played much lighter. It doesn't have to be Looney Toons or Home Alone, just not so severe. Movie audiences are extremely used to someone getting knocked unconscious and standing up later with no permanent damage.
>But before that, he flew up and got that good dose of unfiltered yellow sun radiation and THEN flew down to move the kryptonite. I accepted that gave him the energry he needed to get most of the job done.
This then becomes like the time travel thing. Just fly into space for five minutes, get an extra tan and then take on anything as you're practically unstoppable.
>Jason M. Bryant: I've lived through several power outages in my life, and I've never once heard of a police investigation into them. ... I never saw anything about a police investigation of that, either.
Those probably didn't result in lots of people dying. This one would have stopped pacemakers and other life-support gear. That sort of thing would get noticed.
>I felt like we waited twenty-five years (thirty? I'm not sure how long it's been) and then sat in the theater for two and a half hours of a movie that really went nowhere.
And that's the worst part of it. This film has been how many years in the making? And this mish-mash of half-baked characters and ludicrous plot elements is the best they could come up with? Consider SPIDER-MAN 2 which was, what? Three years after the first? And in many peoples' mind even better than the deservedly sucessful first, with solid characterisations, as well as character development and an internally consistent plot. Next to that, after all these years of preparation, SUPERMAN RETURNS honestly feels to me like a poorly conceived, ill-thought-out second rater.
"Does anyone still do the red and green anymore?"
Just Robert Rodriguez, for some reason (and it's red and blue, actually).
"Next to that, after all these years of preparation, SUPERMAN RETURNS honestly feels to me like a poorly conceived, ill-thought-out second rater."
Funny, that's how I felt about Spider-Man 2. Between Spider-Man taking off his mask in public every two minutes, to Dr. Octopus throwing a car at him when he needs him alive, to Aunt May's painfully stupid "hero" speech, plus countless other poorly written and conceived scenes, it was just one incredibly dumb movie, and pretty much a retread of the first movie. And I wasn't even that crazy about the first movie.
StarWolf: "Those probably didn't result in lots of people dying. This one would have stopped pacemakers and other life-support gear. That sort of thing would get noticed."
It would have been noticed, and it also would have been mentioned in the movie if it had happened. Lois spent a lot of time trying to convince Perry that the blackout was serious, yet she never said a word about death or disaster. Thus, it didn't happen.
What happened in the movie was that everything stopped for a few seconds and then turned back on again. Maybe that's not normal for an EMP, but that's what happened in the movie. Superman didn't run around stopping multiple disasters like he would later in the movie. The news report said that there was a problem with the shuttle separation, but didn't say "we have reports of disasters from all over." Lois didn't mention deaths at all when she was trying to show that the blackout was an important story. Thus, there was no death from the blackout in the movie.
1Movie audiences are extremely used to someone getting knocked unconscious and standing up later with no permanent damage.
****
They are also extrmely used to good characters killing bad guys with little thought, angst on the part of the killer, or comment after the fact. Which is what you had here.
We already saw that kryptonite had no effect, so we know he doesn't work the same way as a Kryptonian.
****
It seemed like it had no effect but the way Lex knew whose son it was and the way they zoomed in on Jason when Lex held the kryptonite close made me think that it was supposed to show Jason was at the least uncomfortable, even if it didn't come across.
The glasses are simply a continuity glitch. The 1979 movie clearly shows him without glasses until he heads to the artic to "build" the Fortress of solitude.
****
I'm not sure it is a glitch. Singer said the two films were a vague history or vague background-they kinda happened, sort of, especially the first one, but this is not a direct sequel-he picked what he liked, and what he didn't like he ignored or changed what he wanted.
"They are also extrmely used to good characters killing bad guys with little thought, angst on the part of the killer, or comment after the fact. Which is what you had here."
They're not used to little kids executing bad people, or else several people would not have mentioned it.
Kill the guy: some like it, some don't.
Knock the guy out (and a little pain just for fun): everyone likes it.
Not a major point, it's just a minor improvement they could have made. Rather insignificant compared to the bigger problems of the movie. Also insignificant compared to the successful parts of the movie, which there were plenty of.
1They're not used to little kids executing bad people, or else several people would not have mentioned it.
*****
Having not seen any critics reviews even mention it, and hearing the crowd gasp and cheer when he revealed his power/lineage, I believe very few people even noticed it or gave a second thought to that guy, just like the movie didn't (as in , it didn't linger over his body, show the kid traumatized, or Lois traumatized).
Knock the guy out (and a little pain just for fun): everyone likes it.
****
Forgot to mention that no, everyone wouldn't like it, because the number one complaint I here is "Why the heck does Superman have a son, how can they not let Richard know, how can Lois know its Supermans if Superman II counts, and I really don't want to see Superboy in training in the sequels, nor do I want Superman to be either a homewrecker, or not be able to have a thing with Lois"
Those aren't necessarily my complaints, but they are complaints, whether he killed or knocked out the guy. That is what you hear people debating and really arguing about, not some nameless thug that almost no one even remembers.
"and hearing the crowd gasp and cheer"
You're going say that the crowd almost universally enjoyed the scene based on THAT?
The people cheering, yes, they liked it. The people who didn't make any noise, nobody knows how they felt. The people who gasped, it's just wishful thinking to say that all of those people liked it. People can gasp for lots of reasons, not all of them good.
As for your comments about the "everybody likes it" statement, I think you misinterpreted that. I didn't mean to say that everyone would love the kid and everything about him. I meant that scene specifically.
Reviewers didn't mention the scene because there were much bigger problems in the movie, as well as much bigger successes. If you want to say that this scene was not a *significant* problem, fine. I have no problem saying that this scene wasn't a big deal. However, if you actually want to debate the merits of this scene, then I think it's valid to say that they could have done it better.
Maybe Brian Singer made a pacifistic decision to not minimize the violence, like these guys are Wile E Coyote and can survive having pianos tossed at them.
I remember buying the Spider-Man annual Frank Miller drew where the Punisher shoots at Spider-Man, and damages his web-shooters without killing him. Is having bullets fly around in your story without fatalities the most principled depiction of gunfire?
Maybe the filmmakers couldn't find an alternative that had as satisfying a story-impact as having the goon tell Lex Luthor that a 5-year-old kid killed one of his men.
Mike, I think that's a very reasonable arguement. I still think that there was a better way of doing it, but I can see where Singer might be thinking along the lines that you suggested.
Also, having Jason accidently kill the goon is consistent with Singer's focus on Clark Kent.
Reeve's portrayal was of a masterful and confident Superman -- who we as weaklings would naturally imagine a Superman to be like -- pretending to be Clark Kent. But a man that powerful would be prone to breaking things if he doesn't constantly measure his actions.
To another Krytonian, Kal-El would seem like an obsessive-compulsive trying not to break everything, trying not to make waves, qualifying everything he has to say -- because asserting himself could mean hurting someone. To Earthlings, known throughout the galaxy for their rallying cry, "Bring it on!" the dainty Clark Kent is of course the subject of ridicule.
"Lois didn't mention deaths at all when she was trying to show that the blackout was an important story. Thus, there was no death from the blackout in the movie."
The only way the depicted phenomenon (which also took out stand-alone and wireless devices) could have failed to kill people - such as those with pacemakers - is if it was inexplicably selective like the one house in the neighbourhood to have water and power in ZONTAR: THING FROM VENUS.
StarWolf, pacemakers don't work that way. It's not a mater of instant death if they're turned off for a minute. They supplement the natural function. That function is impaired in recipients, but rarely completely lost. So thousands of deaths certainly aren't guaranteed.
However, sometimes people do die from regular blackouts because their life support equipment is off for several hours. Blackouts like the one in this report, which affected several states:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/15/power.outage/
Note that in that report the blackout started 30 hours ago, yet the investigators *still* aren't sure what the cause is even though they've found downed power lines.
Disasters happen all the time, and the movie presented this one as being very tame. If they had showed massive numbers of people dying, I wouldn't have argued. However, the movie acts as if that *didn't* happen, and since this event was exceedingly short, it's reasonable to believe what the movie showed us.
So yes, there would be an investigation. However, there's no particular reason to think that Lois' determined investigation wouldn't make her the first one to track down Lex. Take it as an example of how good a reporter she is that she got there first.
And all of this gets away from the real point. It wasn't necessary *emotionally*. A movie can't stop teaching you something new about the characters or it slows down. A movie can't stop advancing the plot or it slows down. Cops showing up at Lex's door and being tricked into leaving or killed wouldn't have shown us anything interesting about Lex and it wouldn't have advanced the plot. Same thing with having the Feds show up asking about the stolen Russian weapon. Same thing with a dozen other plot holes that could have added a lot of useless time to the movie.
Yeah, it's a little plothole. It's just one that wasn't worth filling.
Jason M. Bryant wrote (at July 6, 2006 10:18pm):
Yeah, it's a little plothole. It's just one that wasn't worth filling.
My problem isn't so much that we didn't see the police investigating -- we didn't see the authorities because that's not who the story's about. My problem is that Perry was being unbelievably stupid for a newspaperman. This blackout stopped battery-powered devices. That's not exactly what you'd call normal. Even if he didn't want Lois on the story, he should've wanted someone on it. Okay, I'm willing to accept that he forgot in the excitement of seeing Superman back, but when Lois reminded him about the blackout, he could've said, "You're right," pointed at some random reporter and said, "You're on the blackout." When Lois protested, he simply reminds her that she's the closest to Superman, and he wants the perspective from the woman who insisted the world didn't need Superman, anyway. None of that changes the story one whit -- Lois still goes after the blackout story without Perry's approval and all -- except that Perry doesn't look like an inept fool.
"My problem is that Perry was being unbelievably stupid for a newspaperman."
Well, he does give the blackout story to Clark, though Clark apparently didn't want to step on Lois' toes.
Other than that, I agree with you, Robin. Perry did seem quite blinded on the Blackout story. Overwhelmed by Superman's return or not, he shouldn't have dismissed it so easily. It does make Perry look less capable.
I've got one problem with the Superman movies, as much as I like them. The problem? Lex Luthor. He just doesn't seem at all threatening to Superman. Hey, most times he woldn't seem threatening to anyone without a stock portfolio. Thiunk about the biggest movies of the last thirty years. Star Wars. You say that to someone, more often than not the thing that pops into their head will be "Darth Vader." Yu talk about the first Burton Batman--you see Nicholson's Joker. Highlander--well, you either see Connery acting like a Spanish Egyptian, or you see the Kurgan. You think of Superman--and you see him fighting Daddy Warbucks. Luthor hasn't worked for me since Legends of the Superfriends went off the air. Arming someone with a rapier wit to go against someone who's, I don't know, invulnerable to bullets? Did I hear someone say overmatch? Now, for Superbadguys, ZOD! Someone that you can actually believe will threaten the hero with something more than a few sly insults. A hero is only as good as the villain he faces. And the villians are USUALLY a lot more interesting than the heroes anyway. You know what to expect from the heroes, but the villains, they get to be ALLLLLL over the place. McKellan's Magneto, in any of the X-movies, shows way more depth than I've ever seen out of Luthor, and there's a REASON for what he does. (BTW, that's the problem I think with the latest Star Wars movies. The bad guys were too MUCH "The Phantom Menace." That and the dialogue.) Sure, heroes need to be believable, and a comic movie generally has to stick with the comic bad guys, but isn't there SOMEONE who's a little more threatening than Luthor? Anyone but Mtzlplk, PLEASE! I like meaty, deep bad guys. But maybe I'm just spoiled.
The only way the depicted phenomenon (which also took out stand-alone and wireless devices) could have failed to kill people - such as those with pacemakers - is if it was inexplicably selective like the one house in the neighbourhood to have water and power in ZONTAR: THING FROM VENUS.
Y'know, I loved that movie as a kid.
Hey, has anyone here seen Mallrats? This question re. Superman Returns and the kid, is bothering the hell out of me.
Anyway, the scene in Mallrats goes as follows:
T.S. QUINT:
But, they're engaged!
BRODIE BRUCE:
Doesn't matter, it can't happen.
T.S. QUINT:
Why not ? It's bound to come up.
BRODIE BRUCE:
It's impossible. Lois could never have Superman's baby. Do you think her fallopian tubes could handle his sperm ? I guarantee he blows a load like a shotgun right through her back.
T.S. QUINT:
What about her womb ? You don't think it's strong enough to carry his child ?
BRODIE BRUCE:
Sure!
T.S. QUINT:
Why not?!
BRODIE BRUCE:
He's an alien, for Christ's Sake! His Kryptonian biological makeup is enhanced by Earth's yellow sun. If Lois gets a tan, the kid could kick right through her stomach! Only someone like Wonder Woman has a strong enough uterus to carry his kid. Only way he could bang regular chicks is with a Kryptonite condom . . . but that would kill him.
T.S. QUINT:
How is it I go from the verge of hot Floridian sex with Brandi to man of steel coital debates with you in the Food Court?
BRODIE BRUCE:
Cookie stand isn't part of the Food Court...
etc. etc. But, you all know what point I'm getting at. I mean, COME ON!
1"and hearing the crowd gasp and cheer"
You're going say that the crowd almost universally enjoyed the scene based on THAT?
*****
Not that they liked it, more like they gasped and cheered because they were so focused that the kid had powers, they didn't notice it.
But, since I don't even feel it was sigtnificant, I have debated it quite a lot, so I guess there isn't much more to say
Just saw the movie last night, so here goes: Overall, I walked away disappointed.
Supes:I grew up a fan of the first 3 movies and seeing Routh play Supes made me realize how much gravitas Reeves brought to the part. There are some actors who can change character at the drop of a dime and this is something Reeve did excellently (for a better example of what I am talking about the one man play "St. John in Exile" is jaw dropping). I just felt Routh wasn't able to project Supe's innate goodness or Clark's feelings of being an outsider as well Reeve' had. Maybe with time his acting will improve, I don't know.
Story: Enhhh. Liked the idea of keeping with the continutiy of the first two movies. Personally, I would have liked it better if they had gone with the original Donner plot in "Superman II" in order for Supes to regain his powers the energy in the green crystal had to be drained also meaning that he would never be able to speak to his father's holographic projection ever again.(By the way, will they ever release the Donner version of S2?) Lex Luther was indeed menanacing, but his plan to create a giant land mass and somehow think he would be able to control who lives on it while killing "billions" seemed retarted.It just didn't seem creative. Why not throw a twist like Lex Luther has become Metropolis' favorite son since Superman has left(of course deceiving people left and right) and has even managed to smear Superman's rep. It just seemed to cartoony for me. I did like the addition of the son conceived while Clark was human in S2. It seems like such an obvious plot now I can't believe its taken this long to follow through.
Music: Why not just bring back the legend himself, John Williams, like Lucas did for the Star Wars movies?
Lois: Enhhh. Would of gone with someone more like the girl from Smallville to tell the truth.
I don't know how much of the disappointment is due to the director's vision or the individual components.(Re: Singer's X-Movies: I still think Magneto's helmet looks like something he picked up from K-Mart.)
Bottom Line: Spiderman is still on top for best comic movie in the age of cg special fx.
(I also thought it was creepy how Supes was spying on Lois. Just didn;t seem like the modest good natured Supes. Maybe he ran into, I don't know, Pok-a-dot kryptonite and now has a stalking bent)
Luigi,
Yes, that was another joke. I was playing off Supes' well-known "Big Blue Boy Scout" image of standing for truth, justice and never teasing his dog. Because, he's, you know, _Superman_ and Superman doesn't do that kind of stuff.
Except that he was raised human, and humans _do_ do that kind of stuff. _Smallville's_ Clark Kent is no angel (though I can't recall and dog-specific instances of teasing), and I'm sure the young Clark of the Donner/Singer films participated in his share of boyish pranks while growing up.
The thing about Lex's dog was also part of the joke. He'd (probably) never do anything to Lex's dog; to Lex, maybe, but not his dog. Though I suppose he would at least be _tempted_ to toss a ball a mile away for Lex's dog to fetch it, just to annoy Lex. Whether he'd actually _do_ it would depend on a variety of factors.
And for the record, yes I teased my dog from time to time. She didn't fetch things, though if you threw something, she'd go after it to see if it was food. When she found it wasn't, she'd just leave it be. No, sometimes she'd be sitting on the couch, minding her own business, and I'd tell her to go home. She'd give an exasperated sigh, make a dismissive wave with her paw, and then proceed to ignore me.
After a minute or so, I'd play with her and/or give her a treat as a "reward" for being such a good sport.
I'd also sometimes play hide-and-seek with her by tossing her leash into the middle of one room, then running into another to hide. She' d come looking for me, and I'd then take her for the walk the leash implied.
Rick
P.S. Kamil, regarding Superman hearing sound in space, was he actually _in_ space or just high up in the atmosphere? I think it's the latter, myself. He was probably as high as he could go and still hear sound.
1.(By the way, will they ever release the Donner version of S2?)
*****
Yes very soon when the 14 disc boxed set comes out with Superman 1 on 3 discs (with theatrical and directors cut and extras), Superman 2 on 3 discs (including theatrical, donner, and extras, Superman 3 on 2 dics, Superman 4 on 2 discs (not including a special edition though it is none a good huge chunk of the movie was cut out which would make it a better though still bad film if put in), the fleischer cartoons, the Look Up in the sky superman documentary, and a 2 disc superman returns package, all included. There are krypton scenes but I am not sure if they will be deleted scenes or extended SR. It will not include Supergirl
but for the donner cut(1) 25% of the script he never filmed so that will be lester scenes and (2) there is additional Brando footage (instead of Lara) that they are still negotiating with Brando's estate to use. Presumably, if the price is right, it will be in
Well, the wife and I just got back from the movie. It was ok.
The problems with the plot, script and general pacing weren't too great and most of the movie was saved by the work of the cast and FX crew. I would have liked everything to have weaved together a little better. My wife pointed out that you could actually have removed almost every Lex scene and you would have barely caused a problem with the rest of the story. Don't quite think that she's that right but pretty close.
The biggest problem I had with it was the casting of Routh as Superman. He looked, sounded and acted so much like Reeve in so many scenes that it just threw me out of the moment or ultimately ended up reminding me of how much better Reeve was with the role. They should have cast someone who would have presented their take on Superman and let the chips fall where they may. The casting of Routh and the supposed directive to have him do Reeve's take on the character whenever he could (combined with using his lines from the first movie) just made me feel that his Supes is a cheap copy of a better model. Combined with the general need to "homage" the first film every five minutes and I just walked away feeling that I saw an ok but unimaginatively produced copy of vastly more superior film.
Lex Luthor left me scratching my head in this movie, despite Kevin Spacey's excellent portrayal. When we first see him, he's been seducing a rich old lady. Why? Does he need money? He's Lex-freaking-Luthor. He should have secret accounts all over the world that the authorities could never even find, let alone seize. And his land plan seems even more flawed than the one in "Superman: The Movie." To get away with his plot in "Superman Returns," he would need an army behind him, not a half-dozen thugs.
And am I the only one who saw the "Superman Dead" headline and thought the next movie's going to be called "Superman Returns Again?"
Overall, it was a good movie, but it fell short of what it could have been.
To The Starwolf: thank you for mentioning "Zontar: The Thing From Venus" It's nice to know I'm not the only one that remembers that movie.
And lastly, in the week before seeing Superman Returns, I was reading Q-Squared and watching the Star Trek Q DVD collection. So naturally, I began to think of Superman vs. Q. I don't know quite what Superman would say, but I just picture Q replying, "Oh, how you DO go on. You're even more self-righteous than Picard, and that's something I had thought impossible." He continues as he creates an avalanche of kryptonite that buries Kal-El, "But at least he was never scared of rocks." Q then snaps his fingers and disappears in a flash of light to spread his unique charms to the cosmos.
"He's Lex-freaking-Luthor. He should have secret accounts all over the world that the authorities could never even find, let alone seize."
Why should he? Because he's "Lex-freaking-Luthor"? That's not an answer. Who the hell is Lex Luthor? Some bumbling criminal with a land fetish who can't stay out of prison, that's who he is.
"Hey, has anyone here seen Mallrats? This question re. Superman Returns and the kid, is bothering the hell out of me."
Oh, that's hardly original to "Mallrats." The topic has been around for decades, most notably addressed in Larry Niven's memorable essay,"Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex." It appears (among other places, I'm sure) in the short story collection, "All the Myriad Ways."
PAD
spiderrob8but for the donner cut(1) 25% of the script he never filmed so that will be lester scenes and (2) there is additional Brando footage (instead of Lara) that they are still negotiating with Brando's estate to use. Presumably, if the price is right, it will be in
Also of note - Donner himself isn't actually doing the "Donner cut" for the DVD.
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.")
I'd certainly agree with this assessment. There was even a tiny Mount Rushmore model that gets destroyed, kinda like how the real one was vandalized at the hands of the Phantom Zone villains in Superman II. I didn't notice, but was there an Eiffel Tower model that loses an elevator, or a leaning tower of Pisa getting righted?
Super Spoiler Ahead for those who didn't see the film. Don't read this if you didn't see the film!
Here's my view of Superman Returns for better or worse.
Superman Returns was better than the original. In this version Superman leaves earth for five years to explore the remains of Krypton. In that time 9/11 occurs. Lois writes a Pulitzer Prize winning article "Why We don't need a Superman." She eventually develops a relationship with Perry White's son. We get the impression the offspring is from her bond with her new man. Although after the first hour we get to see who the son's father really is.
There are scenes that make this movie better than the first version. We don't have Superman changing the course of time to save Lois Lane. Kevin Spacy plays a much darker and sinister Luther. Frank Langella portrays the newpaper mogul in a less cartoony fashion that Jackie Cooper did in 78'. I have to credit the director Bryan Singer for casting a better Lois Lane. At least this one bears a resemblance to the one in the comics. Unlike the Lois in Superman: The Movie with Christopher Reeve.
There was a controversy behind the 78' version. The original creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were living in poverty with little or no money to live. It would have been an embarrassment to Warner Brothers and DC comics if there wasn't a settlement to resolve the matter.
DC artist, Neal Adams helped Siegel and Shuster obtain a legal defense to fight the case. Until recently the son of one of the creators passed away. There is a documentary being produced about how the characters were taken away from the creators. Back in the 1930s there was little known about copyright law. Siegel and Shuster sold the rights only to regret that for the rest of their lives. The recent article about the creators was a sad one. The family has little or no financial benefit from an icon in American Comics. Till this day the family is still struggling against DC Comics and Warner Brothers to get some sort of financial restitution after over 60 years.
There are those who could say that the family is being greedy in asking for some type of financial gain. I'd like to see the new documentary reveal the fact that the creators had been robbed of recognition and financial security.
I don't know if the same is true in Canada and other countries marketing the new Superman movie; but look at all the merchandise! I remember long ago when the first film appeared there was no where near the amount of cups, T-shirts and anything that could fit the Super logo on it.
I do remember purchasing a $2.25 novel written by E. Nelson Bridewell (from DC Comics). It was an unrelated story that took place in the Superman universe. I never got the chance to read it. From what I've read the novel was one of the better ones. I was surprised there weren't more. At the time Marvel was releasing their own versions of prose novels. The books were written by the popular names of the era; Marv Wolfman, Len (Wolverine CO-creator) Wein, and a few others.
One of the commercial tie-in products I purchased were the Justice League Unlimited DVDs. I wondered why the cartoons were played so late in the evening. Well, the content is adult and is for older kids. In one of the episodes Superman is under the influence of a flower alien parasite that controls his mind. The first scene in his dream state shows his bedroom; with wife Lois Lane. Nothing inappropriate in the way of dialogue, but something I didn't expect to see in what is supposedly a kid cartoon. In the story by comics legend Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons of "Watchmen" fame"; Superman sees what his life might have been. The parasite also gets a chance at Wonder Woman and Batman, but the parasite ends up on the black hat of this episode. Seeing the villain looked so much like Darkside, I couldn't remember his name. Perhaps it was Mongul or Mogul.
The other episodes featured Booster Gold. Booster is a man who traveled in the past with current inventions and posed them as his own. To tell you the truth, I stopped reading the comics so long ago, I haven't kept up with the characters anymore. I just don't have the time. I do see that the books are oriented to specific age groups more than my generation. Back in the seventies you'd be lucky if you saw at least three titles with the same hero. Today there are four, five and even more with the X-Men and Superman.
There was a special features section that featured the actors. The actor who portrayed the Green Lantern, John Stewart was from MAD TV. It was hard to believe that this fellow had such a deep voice. And here I thought the actor who played the part was a large guy. There were other mini features that showed the physics behind Superman's powers. Superman supposedly flies faster than the speed of sound. That means video cameras couldn't catch him. The whole idea of Superman changing in a phone booth is out of date today. Not in the cell phone era at least.
Superman is not the wimpy type that the comics often portrayed him as. That is one of the aspects the new film touched upon. Superman was modernized a bit so new audiences could appreciate him. You could argue that he didn't fight enough for Lois Lane. However in this film he stood his ground and wasn't a sap in front of Lois. I did notice how the other actor who portrayed Lois's new beau was Cyclops of X-Men fame. It looks like he was a contender for the Superman role.
The days of skilled pen and ink rendering is gone. It's created in a computer. Comics have lost a lot of the nickel, dime charm and technology has taken over. I like new things, but comics have lost their innocence. Especially when the books are $2.99 apiece. It looks like the video games are replacing the regular comics story. That is why I have purchased the DVD collections of some of the old Marvel Comics. So far I purchased the first 500 issues of the FF and Spidey and Mad on DVD and CD ROM. That's enough reading for me for the next 10 years. I do hope this catches on because I don't have the room to store all those in hard copy.
If you like the Super hero cartoons your in for a treat this month. I just picked up Superman the Animated Series Season 3. It has 18 episodes with three accompanying directors commentaries. Bruce Timm has a lot to say about the creation of each show and why decisions were made to streamline them for audiences. I'd like to see more comics related animation from him. Each project he's associated with has respect for it's source material. When Batman: The animated series premiered all those years ago I was expecting a big letdown. I was glad to be wrong. Comics were part of my childhood long ago and it's good to see that the classic ones are still around. Although comics are no where near as popular as they used to be, they still have an audience.
Short reviewage follow up:
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest >>>>>>>>>>>>> Superman Returns
Yeah, that's right, I went there.
Lets get down to brass tax here: Both movies are 2 and a half hours long. One drags, the other doesn't. One has more bang for your buck FX wise and with visual invention, characters, and a madcap energetic energy, the other doesn't. Basically, if you're with your ____ and you say, "Lets go see a big Summer Movie!" then plunk down your cash for Pirates over Superman. Because it kicks ass. A lot. Best Big Budget FX Extravaganza of the summer, fo shizzle.
I couldn't disagree more. I hated Dead Man's Chest (thought I liked the first one). The plot was a mess, the villains were just repulsive and disturbing (and not in a good way), and it went on way too long (which I didn't feel was the case with Superman Returns). The action is cartoonish -- I felt like I was watching a Looney Tunes cartoon for most of the movie. It just made me want to watch a Buster Keaton movie instead, because it gave me a new appreciation for cartoonish stunts that are actually being performed by the actor and not by a computer. And Johnny Depp is perhaps my favorite actor, but even I was getting tired of his incessant mugging for the camera.
Of course, I didn't get to see the last ten minutes or so, because someone in the audience died and they shut the movie off. Seriously.
Historical note about Kryptonite, which was first introduced on the Superman radio series. When it first appeared, Kryptonite couldn't kill Superman, it just made him as weak and helpless as a new-born babe if he came within 10 feet of it.
There was, however, a way to kill him- one discovered by his enemies in two adventures that featured Kryptonite in a prominent way: "Superman vs. the Atom Man" (1945) and "Superman vs. Kryptonite" (1947). Ironically, Superman himself inadvertantly revealed the means by which he could be killed in the latter adventure. Oops.
And how could Superman be killed, if not by Kryptonite? And, for the record, he remained just as invulnerable to bullets, knives, etc. in his weakened state, as when he was at his strongest.
Simple. He was still a living creature, and all living creatures need....
to eat.
Rick
Because it kicks ass. A lot.
I don't know if I'd go that far, but I'd certainly recommend Dead Man's Chest over Superman Rehashed.
Based on what I'd read and heard, I went into Dead Man's Chest with low expectations. I came out thinking it was a very enjoyable movie, and I really cannot get my head around the litany of complaints I've read on the 'net about this film (too long, not funny, not original, can't understand what's going on, blah blah blah).
The action is cartoonish
And this is again where I scratch my head.
How was the action in the first film not cartoonish?
It's still a Disney film, it's still a Brukheimer film. It's going to be cartoonish!
There's a difference between "cartoonish" in the figurative sense (i.e. fun and family-oriented, as in the first movie) and "cartoonish" in the literal sense (i.e. looking exactly as if it came directly from an actual cartoon, as in the second movie).
It also bothered me that they had to find a way to work in virtually every single character from the first movie, and they did it in a way that was all telling and no showing. This resulted in some very elliptical storytelling and exhaustingly expository dialogue.
I just want to say in the superman reality, superman is seen by the public as being superman all the time. Added clark is a fly on the wall that no one pays attention to. So in their world it would be stupid for a God to walk around as a fool. So no one puts two and two toegther that they are the same person. Batman wears a mask. So you know he has something to hide. Superman and wonderwoman dont so you think they are full time superheros.
Saw the flick yesterday; my two cents:
Good: The quick scene during the shuttle/plane crash, when Lois catches that first glimpse of a streaking red-and-blue blur through the window. In my opinion, the best scene of the film. Yes, there's a predictable build-up; we know Superman is going to save the plane. And really, it's one of the few scenes where the cosmically-miscast Bosworth earns her paycheck as Lois. But for me - that .5 second scene provided the closest approximation to what I feel everytime I watch S:TM, when Superman flies up the face of the Daily Planet to rescue the dangling Lois Lane. Instant charge, instant thrill, the suspension of disbelief - things which make Superman, super.
Bad: Jason. Ridiculous. Unnecessary. The inclusion of his character, and the resulting relationship dynamic - for me - was identical to the morass that occurred on Moonlighting, when Cybill Shepard's character was pregnant with either Bruce Willis' child... or Mark Harmon's. It spelled the beginning of the end for an otherwise brilliant show... and this Lois/Richard/Superman situation feels the same. A no-win situation.
Ugly: The lack of any reasonable transition from the overall theme and pacing of the film, to the complete-and-utter ass-kicking of Superman.
I'm as much a fan as anyone of a solid action movie, and no one got a bigger thrill when Wolverine was finally allowed to start using his claws in the X-films, but the sheer brutality conveyed during Superman's beating was completely out-of-line from the rest of the film. The closest point of reference I could imagine were some of the more violent scenes from "Passion of the Christ" - which assuredly fosters the Christ/Superman parallels.
The scenes of Superman attempting to evade his beating, crawling, rolling, screaming in pain were unnecessary, they were uncomfortable to watch, and I think Singer made an exceptionally bad choice in pulling the trigger on it. Batman can get the shit kicked out of him, and ultimately exact revenge through the administration of a non-stop beatdown. Hell, Bats enjoys that sort of thing. Wolverine.. well.. he personifies such. But Superman? Getting owned like that? Not in a Superman film, not when 7 yr old kids are viewing it.
Bad: In line with this, there was never any payoff for the beating he suffered. He's not going to power up, swoop in, and throw the 3 thugs into orbit. Their deaths were legitimate. But the lack of *any* resolution with Luthor... the fact that the movie ends with Luthor stranded in a semi-comical situation merely widens the gap in reason. Luthor spends the majority of the movie more engaged in sarcastic malevolence than outright homicidal mania. For 5 minutes, he's Lecter, the Joker, Sabretooth... pick your insane super-villain. Then - without any relevant climax, he's a schlep on a deserted island sarcastically intimating that the dog's for dinner.
Sure, it's a set-up for the next installment, when Luthor and Brainiac/Bizarro/Doomsday/whomever plot to kick his ass prison-style again.
But the lack of any meaningful climax leaves Singer guilty of clumsy character and plot progressions, and in turn, makes for a bit of lousy film-making.
Bad: I've read previously that originally, Superman thought he was either going to be gone, or had been gone, for a few months - unaware that 5 years had elapsed. Had this been implemented into the film, it would have served as a much more entertaining and fulfilling plotline. Yes, the rationale in Superman's desertion/departure from Earth is arguable... but the concept that he thought he was gone for a few months, but returns to learn it's been 5 years, would have lent considerable depth to the concept that while not only the world *does* need a Superman, but that he, in turn, needs the world. Another opinion, but jesus... the decision to not incorporate that from a treatment, or script, or adaptation was a massive error.
Who knows: The remaining Kryptonian crystals.
Presumably, they're now up in orbit on the Kryptonian mini-continent. It looked like apparently "all" of the remaining Kryptonian crystals were stolen by Luthor (basing this upon Superman's reaction at the empty crystal console in the Fortress).
However, in some of the promotional placards in the theater, Luthor is pictured holding the green Kryptonian crystal, last seen early on in S:TM... the one Clark throws into the Arctic, that creates his Fortress. Unless they're trying to portray this green crystal as Kryptonite - as opposed to the angular and polished Fortress-creation crystal, it seems like there's something missing here.
My guess - the remaining Kryptonian crystals will be the driving force behind Luthor's next lame-ass plot. Seeing as they're in space, he'll probably steal/develop Brainiac technology... or create a Bizarro... in order to retrieve them, so he can live out his dream of personalized real estate.
Last comments:
Brandon Routh. His Superman in the next 2 installments will get better and better - but I think he did a great job.
Frank Langella. Solid as Perry.
Sam Huntington. A well-played Jimmy Olsen.
Parker Posey. Underused talent in this film. If she were 5 years younger (or if they'd cast a slightly older-looking Superman), she would have been a perfect Lois Lane.
So I was glancing thru the novelization in the bookstore and I saw no indication of Jason being anything other than Lois and Richard's kid. What's up with that?
While I was disappointed with some of "Superman Returns", it is still far better than the truly horrible "Pirates" sequel, IMHO. I saw "dead Man's Chest" at a drive-in and only chuckled occasionally. The feature afterward, "Cars", was absolutely fantastic, however.
I just saw the movie last night.
Went in with the comic fan mindset, definitely liked the film, saw the plot holes big enough to drive a truck through and chalked them to hopefully getting some of it worked right in the sequel. (They should make one. He's back, get to a Braniac/Doomsday/Darkseid/show us a good Superman action movie)
But here's the moment that just sold the movie for me:
The scene you see in the commercials where the crook shoots the bullet towards Superman's eye. The scene played out in the theater, then you hear this one young boy's voice just go "Woah."
My friend and I looked at each other, smiled, chuckled and I went "Ok I no longer have any problems with this film. With a reaction like that, Singer just did everything right."
You can't buy more personal validation than that.
Though they should have done the dedication to Christopher Reeve and his wife earlier in the film. Like right after the DC logo.
Posted by: ArcLight at July 11, 2006 01:39 AM
So I was glancing thru the novelization in the bookstore and I saw no indication of Jason being anything other than Lois and Richard's kid. What's up with that?
***
There isn't. Nor is there in the comic adaptation from what I am told. I heard that they didn't want spoilers to get out, but it may also be that they were keeping some of their options open to the last minute, I don't know.
I'm as much a fan as anyone of a solid action movie, and no one got a bigger thrill when Wolverine was finally allowed to start using his claws in the X-films, but the sheer brutality conveyed during Superman's beating was completely out-of-line from the rest of the film. The closest point of reference I could imagine were some of the more violent scenes from "Passion of the Christ" - which assuredly fosters the Christ/Superman parallels.
The scenes of Superman attempting to evade his beating, crawling, rolling, screaming in pain were unnecessary, they were uncomfortable to watch,
*****
That is what i liked about the scene. it was brutal. It was hard to watch. It showed, to me, how much resonance Superman has, and this Superman had. Seeing him so low was emotional, and it was a great feeling when he recovered and shoved the island into space, IMO.
As brutal as the Superman beating was (and even then, not Tarantino brutal or anything), I believe it did its job.
Why?
Because as that scene played out, I heard someone in the row behind me weeping and sniffling.
It's Superman. He represents the best of us. And he is brutalized. And we weep for the lost innocence that it represents.
Superman Returns.
So now Superman is a deadbeat dad, his bastard son is a killer, and lois is a quick and easy slut. Superman left Earth without saying anything to anybody, and supposedly right after he promised the President that he wouldn't let him down again (at the end of Superman II). If Jor-El had missed by a few hours, Superman's ship would have gone in the ocean, crystals and all, and killed billions of people when it made an island.
Just about everything in this movie is B.S.
Bryan Singer is a good director, but he cannot write.
Warner Brothers needs to sell the rights to Superman so some other studio can actually make a Superman movie, which hasn't been done in over twenty years.
Superman Returns.
So now Superman is a deadbeat dad, his bastard son is a killer, and lois is a quick and easy slut. Superman left Earth without saying anything to anybody, and supposedly right after he promised the President that he wouldn't let him down again (at the end of Superman II). If Jor-El had missed by a few hours, Superman's ship would have gone in the ocean, crystals and all, and killed billions of people when it made an island. Parker Posey played a lousy two-dimensional rehash of Miss Tesmacher. The insertion of obviously reenacted scenes from Titanic and Passion of the Christ were just pathetic. Two crucifictions and one resurrection was more than too much.
Just about everything in this movie is garbage.
Bryan Singer is a good director, but he cannot write.
Warner Brothers needs to sell the rights to Superman so some other studio can actually make a Superman movie, which they still haven't done in over twenty years. They need to start over with a Superman Begins. New music, all new actors, most definitely a new director. They need to bar Singer from the set like he was Joel Schumaker. This sloppy attempt at a movie fails on all levels, I hope they try again with a better team than this. I just hope it doesn't take 20 more years for someone to make an actual Superman movie.
MrE
"So now Superman is a deadbeat dad"
A deadbeat dad is someone who refuses to pay child support. That hardly applies here.
"His bastard son is a killer"
But I'm sure he didn't mean it.
"and lois is a quick and easy slut."
Whaaat? She's married, you idiot.
Wow, Superman fans are scary -- Lois has to be pure and virginal, and Superman has to be the epitome of perfection in every way. You'd think they'd want all the Jesus analogies they can get, because that's what they've turned him into. Or do they not allow any other god before Kal-El?
While I was disappointed with some of "Superman Returns", it is still far better than the truly horrible "Pirates" sequel, IMHO. I saw "dead Man's Chest" at a drive-in and only chuckled occasionally. The feature afterward, "Cars", was absolutely fantastic, however.
hhahaha, wow, I diagree with you on so many levels re. your above post, its kind of mindblowing.
Quickly now: is the glass half full or half empty. DON'T THINK! JUST RESPOND! ASAP!!!!
"So now Superman is a deadbeat dad"
A deadbeat dad is someone who refuses to pay child support. That hardly applies here.
Your logical explanation is getting in the way of a decent quip. And, seriously, he's off planet for 5 freakin years and doesn't say Boo to his kid. How is that not a "deadbeat dad"? I mean, COME ON!
"Wow, Superman fans are scary -- Lois has to be pure and virginal, and Superman has to be the epitome of perfection in every way. You'd think they'd want all the Jesus analogies they can get, because that's what they've turned him into. Or do they not allow any other god before Kal-El?"
Since day one Superman has been a lying asshole for making idiots of his closest friends, colleagues and the woman he loves by pretending to be someone else. And Lois has and always will be a nasty, abusive, man-chasing shrew.
Or at least that's one way of looking at these characters. In the end, their flaws are what make them identifiable to us real people. While Lois being a single mom may seem scandalous and unconventional to many people, the fact is that there are lots and lots of single moms out there who are doing a hell of a job raising kids. That doesn't mean they're quick and easy sluts or that they deserve to be harshly judged. If anything, they should be given a round of applause.
Superman, however, is still a dick:
Oh Dear God. Thank you, Barry. Thank you for that website.
I was thinking about Lois's ring when it came to Jason. I did not notice until I saw it a second time. The ring on her ring finger doesn't look like a diamond. It was dark. Maybe that explains why Jason is weak and allergic. Lois is protecting him. Also, is this some sort of weird tie-in to 52?
Also, am I the only one who noticed that Spacey had little Rosenbaum Luthor going? Rosenbaum likes to imitate Spacey, maybe he was returning the favor.
The movie as a whole left me unsatisfied. I thought it was great until the boy came into question. I like it better when the original rumors came out that Lois's had a son, but by adopting Richard's.
I like Marsden as Richard better than his whiny Cyclops. I mean you look at the comic, Jean dies, a hot blonde takes her place.
Also, one more thought or question really, the thug shooting Supes, Corbin? Maybe Metallo will be visiting Metropolis.
I personally would like to see Supergirl crashing to Earth with a pissed off Granny Goodness behind her with Darkseid close by.
It did strike me odd to see Clark Kent drinking a beer, but then figured alcohol probably doesn't affect Kryptonian physiology (since we're ignoring Superman III) the way it would an "ordinary" human. It carries into the whole "Since he gets his power from the yellow sun, he really doesn't need to eat or drink." He does so for the taste and flavor, and as Clark, to blend in.
