New Man of Steel Pictures

[Hector]

I need another box of tissue paper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hector]

Hey Hector. How well did Superman Returns live up to your anticipation prior to seeing it?

I liked it (not love), I thought Brandon Routh did a fine job, but to be brutally honest, I did not like the superkid storyline, was also disappointed to get yet another tired dosage of Lex Luthor. But unlike most people here, did not find it boring, I just get a thrill of just seeing Supes fly, it gives me goosebumps whatever he does, lol.

Was it perfect? No. It obviously lacked action, super foes, and Singer overplaing Williams' classic theme music, which almost gave it an unintentionally feel to the movie.

I like the different take in this new film (Krypton is not the benevolent planet we are used too), a lot of action will be displayed in Man of Steel, we are FINALLY going to see a Superman who truly kicks arse, I cannot friggin' wait, lol.

[MIB41]

I liked it (not love), I thought Brandon Routh did a fine job, but to be brutally honest, I did not like the superkid storyline, was also disappointed to get yet another tired dosage of Lex Luthor. But unlike most people here, did not find it boring, I just get a thrill of just seeing Supes fly, it gives me goosebumps whatever he does, lol.

Was it perfect? No. It obviously lacked action, super foes, and Singer overplaing Williams' classic theme music, which almost gave it an unintentionally feel to the movie.

I like the different take in this new film (Krypton is not the benevolent planet we are used too), a lot of action will be displayed in Man of Steel, we are FINALLY going to see a Superman who truly kicks arse, I cannot friggin' wait, lol.

Yep. I agree. And lets not forget Singer also made Supes into a stalker too. But this new one has something special brewing in that treatment. Like you, I'm hoping we finally get to see Superman go 15 rounds with a bad arse villain. Did you pick up a Walmart early bird ticket or are you going to wait and just see it that opening weekend?

[Operation:Mego]

Did you pick up a Walmart early bird ticket or are you going to wait and just see it that opening weekend?

A busy schedule prevented me from seeing it early, but I'm going to see it sometime on the 14th, wearing a MoS t-shirt of course. Wait, you were talking to Hector...don't mind me.

[huedell]

.... And lets not forget Singer also made Supes into a stalker too....

I can let a lot of the venom for the reboot/repeat stuff pass without rebuttal... I mean, hey he has to be "new" I guess.

But the "stalker" thing?

Let me ask, when all logic is considered, is Superman (in ANY iteration) really ever gonna NOT do stuff like that to Lois? ESPECIALLY after he's been away for 5 years and returns to find her essentially "married" to another guy?

Clark is OBSESSED with Lois... and vice versa. That's what defines their relationship. Singer didn't make Supes a "stalker"--- IMHO he humanized Supes with that scene.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Naw. It was pretty creepy.

Routh was likable in the role, but the storyline portrayed Superman as abandoning Earth on a pretty flimsy search, especially since the "Return to Krypton" sequence was deleted. He leaves us in a lurch, and then comes back and can't cope with the fact that world, and especially Lois, has moved on without him. I think it was too much for audiences to take with a NEW Superman. Had this been an actual sequel after a string of movies with this cast, it may have worked better. But Routh and the cast as surrogates for Reeve and company made it all seem really odd.

I still like the film on it's own merits, but I've said a million times, it wasn't the Superman movie anyone was hoping for, or what the franchise needed for a fresh start after 19 years.

Chris

Chris

[huedell]

Naw. It was pretty creepy.

I'm assuming the "naw" means that you're saying I didn't think Supes' actions were creepy.

That's not true.

It's just that I don't find "creepy" and "being human" mutually exclusive when it comes to being in love with someone. Especially (as noted in the last post I made) in such a unique "returning" scenario.

[MIB41]

I can let a lot of the venom for the reboot/repeat stuff pass without rebuttal... I mean, hey he has to be "new" I guess.

But the "stalker" thing?

Let me ask, when all logic is considered, is Superman (in ANY iteration) really ever gonna NOT do stuff like that to Lois? ESPECIALLY after he's been away for 5 years and returns to find her essentially "married" to another guy?

Clark is OBSESSED with Lois... and vice versa. That's what defines their relationship. Singer didn't make Supes a "stalker"--- IMHO he humanized Supes with that scene.

Superman Returns was suppose to be a sequel to Superman 2. Unfortunately Singer, for whatever reason, overlooked the character's maturation process from that previous film. Superman abandoned his powers so he could, by his own mother's definition, become "one of them". In his eyes, he felt like he had to share their vulnerabilities to truly bond. But through that process, he discovers Lois is in love with the idea of who he was...namely Superman. And once earth is attacked and he is initially helpless to respond, he finally understands he has a greater purpose, both in his life and that of the people of earth. So he understands at that point, the possibilities of him and Lois are not grounded and he chooses to move on by erasing her memory (or so he thought). The last scene shows him replacing a section of the White House holding the flag. He says to the president, "Good afternoon Mr. President. Sorry I've been away so long. I won't let you down again."

All of that connotation is erased at the very start of Superman Returns. After seeming to be apologetic to the leader of the free world, he inexplicably leaves to go find a planet he has been told since birth no longer exists? Huh? Has he not put two and two together and understood the most relevant piece of the planet remaining can kill him? And when he sees Lois again, how is it all of those years of familiarity and personal discovery are now lost? How is it that he's suddenly a lost puppy on this planet again? And why the obsession? That's a complete shift in logic from what he already knows to be true. And for a man who wouldn't even take note of her underwear unless she asked him to look, I find it inconceivable that he would suddenly feel the need to hover outside her home and peer into her private life to fulfill some deep curiosity that doesn't fit with his personality traits or the fact he had moved on from the last installment.

And I'm not sure where staring into someone's home some how makes them "human". Whether you could fly or just drive by in a car, that obsession, as you say, is not reflective of a healthy state of mind. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. There is a moral code in that scenario...for some of us. So I agree with Chris. It is creepy and does not fit the code of conduct with any Superman incarnation I've seen. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

[madmarva]

Artistically, Superman Returns isn't a bad movie. Actually, Singer told the story he wanted to tell - biological fathers not always being the best fathers and what happens when relationships are put on hold for work - very effectively, despite its annoying reverence to Donner's work and ham-fisted Christ metaphors.

But as Chris pointed out, that's not really what anyone wanted in a Superman film. It's subject matter was too mature or serious. It's almost Kramer vs. Kramer with a super hero stuck in it.

Singer could have made the essence of his film in 1978 or 1985 or 1990. What I wanted to see, and I think a lot of others did too, was a Superman film that we could not have imagined being made prior to the advances in technology during the last decade or so.

I really didn't care for the Matrix - yeah I'm that one guy in the wilderness - but it was the first movie to me whose special effects shouted that Hollywod was ready to reproduce any super powers ever put on the page even better on the big screen. And look at the films that soon followed.

While the action and effects in Superman Returns are good, it's just not enough and Superman's powers and the scope of his universe really isn't on display like it could have been. And while there is no doubt the strength of Superman is his goodness or kindness despite his powers, what makes him cool are the powers.

It appears Snyder got the message and Man of Steel looks great from a standpoint of what was missing from Superman Returns. I remember being so excited for Superman returns after seeing Singer's presentation at ComicCon. So, I'm skeptically optimistic - your oxymoron of the day - as Man of Steel's debut approaches.

I hope we get a great story with outstanding displays of super powers and action, but I also hope Warners didn't throw out too much of the comic book cannon in an attempt to make the character cool. I don't like the drab or muted blue and red or the scales. Tim Burton's legacy from Batman seems to be that all super heroes wear rubber suits.

[MIB41]

Artistically, Superman Returns isn't a bad movie. Actually, Singer told the story he wanted to tell - biological fathers not always being the best fathers and what happens when relationships are put on hold for work - very effectively, despite its annoying reverence to Donner's work and ham-fisted Christ metaphors.

I always felt Singer was treating Superman like an old boyfriend coming back into her life. The whole vibe felt like an emotional triangle between Lois and her two squeezes. And that's where I didn't agree on the treatment. It wasn't like Superman was ambivalent about how he felt at the end of Superman 2. Quite the contrary. He had come into his own emotional state of understanding. That's why this whole subplot of Superman suddenly feeling lost in the universe was just a complete disconnect from what had come previously. I never got the sense that Superman was even cognitive of the boy being his biological son until very late in the film. But l think we all agree this was not a story to tell, from any point of view, with a reboot. I think Singer's insistence in wanting to stay married to the Reeves films, ultimately undid what should have been a fresh take on the hero. Man of Steel appears to be taking lessons from this.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Yep, yep and yep.

Chris

[huedell]

Superman Returns was suppose to be a sequel to Superman 2. Unfortunately Singer, for whatever reason, overlooked the character's maturation process from that previous film. Superman abandoned his powers so he could, by his own mother's definition, become "one of them". In his eyes, he felt like he had to share their vulnerabilities to truly bond. But through that process, he discovers Lois is in love with the idea of who he was...namely Superman. And once earth is attacked and he is initially helpless to respond, he finally understands he has a greater purpose, both in his life and that of the people of earth. So he understands at that point, the possibilities of him and Lois are not grounded and he chooses to move on by erasing her memory (or so he thought). The last scene shows him replacing a section of the White House holding the flag. He says to the president, "Good afternoon Mr. President. Sorry I've been away so long. I won't let you down again."

All of that connotation is erased at the very start of Superman Returns. After seeming to be apologetic to the leader of the free world, he inexplicably leaves to go find a planet he has been told since birth no longer exists? Huh? Has he not put two and two together and understood the most relevant piece of the planet remaining can kill him? And when he sees Lois again, how is it all of those years of familiarity and personal discovery are now lost? How is it that he's suddenly a lost puppy on this planet again? And why the obsession? That's a complete shift in logic from what he already knows to be true. And for a man who wouldn't even take note of her underwear unless she asked him to look, I find it inconceivable that he would suddenly feel the need to hover outside her home and peer into her private life to fulfill some deep curiosity that doesn't fit with his personality traits or the fact he had moved on from the last installment.

And I'm not sure where staring into someone's home some how makes them "human". Whether you could fly or just drive by in a car, that obsession, as you say, is not reflective of a healthy state of mind. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. There is a moral code in that scenario...for some of us. So I agree with Chris. It is creepy and does not fit the code of conduct with any Superman incarnation I've seen. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

While I stand behind the "creepy" and "humanized" ideas not being mutually exclusive (which includes being able to be a kind of "stalker" IF you are harmless kind of stalker, that is), the idea that Supes' actions as a quasi-stalker go against his "...Mr. President... I won't let you down again..." attitude is actually a pretty solid argument for why it's a bad idea for Supes to be distracted by Lois.

Do I still think it makes Supes less likable, and condemn Singer for making him creepy (which he DOES admittedly do), no, I think I'll still give him a pass.

But, I do imagine that the more I watch Returns with the "President apology" thing from S2 in my head during the "stalker" scene, I may start to swaaaaayyyy in the other direction. It does kinda bug me when a character backslides, or some other reversal takes place that was valuable from a preceding installment in a movie series (even if I don't tend to notice that right away).

[Earth 2 Chris]

Also, in Superman III, the true sequel to Superman II (love it or hate it), Clark has moved on from Lois and seems to be considering the possibility of a romance with Lana...as Clark. Those are the parts of the movie that make that outing valid and watchable. It really does feel like the character has grown beyond the instant infatuation he had for Lois, and has looked around to what he let slip away in his younger years, as a lot of people tend to do. THAT humanized him in a way that wasn't the least bit creepy.

Chris

[Hector]

You guys are really getting deep here, i'm enjoying reading this...

[huedell]

Also, in Superman III, the true sequel to Superman II (love it or hate it), Clark has moved on from Lois and seems to be considering the possibility of a romance with Lana...as Clark. Those are the parts of the movie that make that outing valid and watchable. It really does feel like the character has grown beyond the instant infatuation he had for Lois, and has looked around to what he let slip away in his younger years, as a lot of people tend to do. THAT humanized him in a way that wasn't the least bit creepy.

Not saying this just because I have that "Superman III reputation", but you are so right on point with this... funny that my only argument to it becomes "zapping S3 from existence", and I'd only make that argument because it's one that Singer and the majority of movie fans made, and the origin of the place in the Reeve sequence that Returns takes place (nixing 3 and 4, and, in effect making Returns into "the new S3").

Regardless, you are right on target, and I'd have to retract that "all versions of Superman have Supes obsessing over Lois". In fact, S3 took a huge detour from that which you really don't see anywhere else in Supes' history that I can think of. And what's more... that detour WORKS! (To me, anyways.)

And, although I like the point that you say that Lang humanized him by having him address mistakes of his youth... I have to clarify my point for even using that term "humanize" in the first place. Dragging that term out... well, it's is actually BASED on him being creepy.

It's like a "Hey, even SUPERMAN can be creepy when he's obsessing over a chick." thing going on. Now, I hadn't had that worked out in my brain earlier on in the thread, but in thinking through why I feel the way I do about the "quasi-stalker" scene in Returns, it brought me to that conclusion.... an ironic conclusion, considering the whole bit we were debating over... basically being: "Is being 'creepy' a negative thing?"

And the funny answer is.. YES it IS primarily a bad thing, yet Supes does it anyway.

That said, I see where you guys are coming rfrom... ESPECIALLY when you point out the direct contradictions to the character from the Reeve movies.

I sure enjoy Returns, though. Hopefully I didn't debate myself into enjoying it less in the future!