Hope for Clark Kent's glasses in MOS?

[huedell]

hopefully this movie has nothing to do with past movie incarnations.

Funny thing is, if I was sober when I replied to this post the first time, my words would've been something like this:

"Okay. But that wasn't really my point. I was just commenting on the idea that Clark not being 'Glasses Clark' until he's in Metropolis is far from being anything new.... so much so that even the Reeve movies didn't integrate glasses into a young Clark."

But, alcohol-fueled, I got all fiesty and missed my opportunity to make a more practical post

[The Toyroom]

I dunno if Superman Returns proved anything other than you don't give Superman a kid in a live action feature film.

I really don't want to get into a ****ing match over Superman movies again. But it's not just the kid that botched this attempt at "reviving" the franchise instead of focusing
on building a brand new one IMO. You can't carry on the same narrative from "Superman:The Movie" and "Superman:II" some 25+ years later with totally new actors treading
over the same hollowed ground that Reeve, Hackman, Kidder et al walked upon. That is akin to Tim Burton trying to link his 1989 Batman movie to Batman 1966 and think that
no one would notice. The title itself "Superman Returns" is an instant call-back to the fact that supposedly we have seen this version of Superman before and he's an old friend we're all familiar with. But even with Kevin Spacey chewing scenery doing his best Gene Hackman Lex Luthor impersonation it just didn't make that leap of faith, and really how could it, considering the time gap between it and "Superman:II".

The film was doomed because on one hand diehard fans of the original films would love for that magic to be recaptured again, but on the other hand too much time had passed for that even to be possible (John Williams' magnificent score notwithstanding). And rehashing the tired old Lex Luthor Real Estate Plot brought nothing new to the narrative. Been there, done that and done that better the first time. They should have went with a totally new storyline and a new introduction of the character. Which is obviously what they have to do now anyway only 7 years later with "Man of Steel" to get the stink off the character. But that's been par for the course with DC in general for the last decade as they can seem to decide on a particular version for their characters in any medium and stick with it.

[The Toyroom]

But that's been par for the course with DC in general for the last decade as they can seem to decide on a particular version for their characters in any medium and stick with it.

DC commissioned "Superman:Birthright" from Mark Waid to reboot Superman's origin in 2003. By 2005, the new origin was scrapped during "Infinite Crisis"...with a new "Official" origin written by Geoff Johns in "Superman:Secret Origin" in 2009. However, DC rebooted their entire universe in 2011, rendering the newest origin of
Superman obsolete as Grant Morrison give it yet another new spin.

And yet, supposedly "Man of Steel" the movie is inspired by parts of Waid's "Birthright".....Unbelieveable

[Earth 2 Chris]

I like Returns on it's own merits, but I have to agree with Anthony's assessment. It was the wrong movie to reboot a franchise. It's a franchise ender, not a starter...and without the real participants of the previous films, it's just an odd love letter to those movies. It really makes me scratch my head sometimes how it got made as is. I think WB saw the money Singer made with the X-Men films and just blindly let him loose.

Chris

[huedell]

I'm soooooooooo happy you're such a good sport. Sometimes people don't get the comedy in my comedy.

The Net is rife for opportunities for such things to get misconstrued. I've enjoyed construing YOU thus far, MK

I like Returns on it's own merits, but I have to agree with Anthony's assessment. It was the wrong movie to reboot a franchise. It's a franchise ender, not a starter...and without the real participants of the previous films, it's just an odd love letter to those movies. It really makes me scratch my head sometimes how it got made as is. I think WB saw the money Singer made with the X-Men films and just blindly let him loose.

Chris, I couldn't have said it any better or any different (Take your pick!). I hope I didn't give you any other impression than that.

I really don't want to get into a ****ing match over Superman movies again....

Wow, talk about words that ruin my day!

....But it's not just the kid that botched this attempt at "reviving" the franchise instead of focusing
on building a brand new one IMO. You can't carry on the same narrative from "Superman:The Movie" and "Superman:II" some 25+ years later with totally new actors treading over the same hollowed ground that Reeve, Hackman, Kidder et al walked upon. That is akin to Tim Burton trying to link his 1989 Batman movie to Batman 1966 and think that no one would notice.

The title itself "Superman Returns" is an instant call-back to the fact that supposedly we have seen this version of Superman before and he's an old friend we're all familiar with. But even with Kevin Spacey chewing scenery doing his best Gene Hackman Lex Luthor impersonation it just didn't make that leap of faith, and really how could it, considering the time gap between it and "Superman:II".

The film was doomed because on one hand diehard fans of the original films would love for that magic to be recaptured again, but on the other hand too much time had passed for that even to be possible (John Williams' magnificent score notwithstanding). And rehashing the tired old Lex Luthor Real Estate Plot brought nothing new to the narrative. Been there, done that and done that better the first time. They should have went with a totally new storyline and a new introduction of the character. Which is obviously what they have to do now anyway only 7 years later with "Man of Steel" to get the stink off the character. But that's been par for the course with DC in general for the last decade as they can seem to decide on a particular version for their characters in any medium and stick with it.

Yes, I don't agree with your assessments that things were done better "the first time". My belief is that is that everything about Hackman's Lex was improved upon in Returns.

I also feel the real estate plan was a perfect extension of Hackman's Luthor's character's motivation and not a rehash... my thoughts being "How cool is it that the real estate hound who hates Superman is now using Superman's OWN technology to create NEW real estate with that same dang crystal technology that we learned about in the Reeve movies?"... REAL cool writing as far as interweaving two unrelated crucial concepts from the Reeve movies to come up with one unified idea for Lex's newest scheme IMHO.

As I've said before: Returns is written TOO GOOD for it's own good. How this (opinion) assessment manifests (to me) after the clever SR script elements that combine the Kryptonian crystal with Lex's main character motivation THEN comes ANOTHER "Wow" concept... the ultimate clever extension of Superman I & II by combining elements of THOSE films as far as the "Father theme"! As in: "Remember the Christ element to Brando/Reeve's relationship? Remember when Clark and Lois slept together? Let's do something with THAT!"

All great ideas to me personally. All written with a style that I prefer to whoever was writing the Reeve movies. The only thing I kinda missed was Reeve himself. But, hey, I sure as heck liked that clone of Reeve they got to replace him

That aside.... MOST people are on your side Anthony.

I can't stand behind a movie that nobody en masse really cares is "history".

Plus, let's say everyone loved Returns as much as I did.

Well, we're back to the cold reality that "Superkid" painted the franchise into a corner.

In the end it coulda only worked as a standalone... or a franchise-ender.. or what-have you..... when Chris says he can't really fathom how the movie was even allowed to be put into production... I have to SO much agree with him.

Considering WB/DC's goals with a DCU cinematic universe---or just the Superman franchise alone... it was a REAL STUPID business decision.

[thunderbolt]

Funny thing is, if I was sober when I replied to this post the first time, my words would've been something like this:

"Okay. But that wasn't really my point. I was just commenting on the idea that Clark not being 'Glasses Clark' until he's in Metropolis is far from being anything new.... so much so that even the Reeve movies didn't integrate glasses into a young Clark."

But, alcohol-fueled, I got all fiesty and missed my opportunity to make a more practical post

So, does alcohol explain all your posts?

[Operation:Mego]

I always thought Supes kid was a refference to Superboy, the only difference it's his son not a clone. I would've liked a sequel with Brainiac as the villain and Superman having a Jor-El type role.

[huedell]

So, does alcohol explain all your posts?

Short answer would have to be: "No."

[huedell]

I always thought Supes kid was a refference to Superboy, the only difference it's his son not a clone. I would've liked a sequel with Brainiac as the villain and Superman having a Jor-El type role.

Of course, "I" would have loved that direction, man. And you know what? If Returns would have been made as an animated film, we mighta easily got a sequel like that! In the DCU "animated" projects there's room for ALL versions of the DCU!

[Operation:Mego]

Of course, "I" would have loved that direction, man. And you know what? If Returns would have been made as an animated film, we mighta easily got a sequel like that! In the DCU "animated" projects there's room for ALL versions of the DCU!

Yeah, that would've been cool. It's a shame that it didn't get made (it seemed like it was going to be better than Returns), but at least Man of Steel is looking good. And who knows, maybe an animated sequel to Returns could be made. It wouldn't be the first time something like that happened.