Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

With 10 being the best and 1 being the worst, how would you rate Superman Returns?

10
20
16%
9
18
15%
8
35
28%
7
19
15%
6
12
10%
5
4
3%
4
3
2%
3
0
No votes
2
1
1%
1
5
4%
I will not be seeing this
6
5%
 
Total votes : 123

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 am

I'm onna the board with a you paisan, eh? The Superman Returns? She was a the, how you putzes like a to say? "Teh Suk?"
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby havocSchultz on Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:42 am

Bryan Singer cleans your pool...?
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Zarles on Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:34 am

Jinxo, I was referring to this -

Let's move on to the credits. Yes, the credits. What could be wrong there? There they used the crystalline flying lettering from the original films. We watch the credits whiz by as we fly through the galaxy. Same lettering, the majesty of space, so it can't be bad, right?

Wrong. It ain't the same. The original film used the crystalline lettering and its shots of space to create a sense of grandeur, majesty. The lettering has weight. When we see Krypton, Earth and other celestial bodies, they all have a feeling of mass, size and, again, majesty. Krypton looks huge and imposing. When it blows up it is a massive blast. When Superman changes the rotation of the Earth he is moving an impossible mass. In Superman Returns these same elements seem to be used because they're pretty. The titles don't seem to have weight or import as they whiz by. Maybe they are undermined by the lackluster opening card that precedes them. Maybe it's just me. But the shots of planets isn't just me. We zoom through space past giant planets. But these aren't massive weighty bodies. Nope. They whiz around and jump about like pretty balloons. Wheeee!!!

Ugh.


I disagree. That opening sequence (minus the title card at the very beginning) took me right back to the original movies. It felt extremely authentic to me, (especially the blue crystalline lettering) and to be honest, I really think you're nitpicking here.

To each their own, but there are more things to pull apart in SR than a CG fly-by of some anonymous planets.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby Al Shut on Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:06 am

It took me three years to finally see Superman Returns.

Could have easily waited another three
Note to myself: Fix this image shit!
User avatar
Al Shut
THE LAUGHING ZONER
 
Posts: 6220
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Oberhausen, Germany

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby TheButcher on Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:37 pm

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby travis-dane on Sat Nov 14, 2009 5:16 pm



Man, I would like to see the Krypton stuff.
I read somewhere it was completely finished with F/X and all and then cut out.
I would buy the Singer cut.
-
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs!
Image
User avatar
travis-dane
100% OLEG!
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:19 am
Location: DTVille

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sat Nov 14, 2009 5:36 pm

Even without looking at the link, it just comes across as a fuckwit example of wasting all that time, money and effort in making a huge difficult burdening sequence only at the end to think 'Actually, I should never have filmed that'. I know in film making and editing you can sometimes only make certain decisions in dropping a scene from a film in the cutting stage, but also I know that some things are painfully OBVIOUS that they should never have been filmed at all in the first place and you don't need special foresight to see this even before you film/edit then axe the damn thing.

Especially as film making is a helluva lot of effort and later a helluva lot of waste when you decide to put it on the cutting room floor, surely a sequence like Supes in Space can be decided to not even be filmed.

Here's my reasons why...

1. Superman was wasting his time looking for something that didn't exist.
2. Even if there could be plausibility or any doubt in the above, we don't buy it for a second, as it's OBVIOUS from the get go that Krypton is now more, as we ALL KNOW there was nothing left of Krypton by the MASSIVE EXPLOSION that happened to it in the first film.
3. Supes was a freaking idiot going up there in the first place (see above) and does NOTHING for his character as he spends God knows how many years chasing something that weren't even there.
4. Considering the above, it's a farking AWFUL plot device to explain why his whole life fell apart back on earth, losing Lois etc. Again, Superman is so DUMB! SUPERman of all people!!!

At BEST, this part of the story is slow and leads nowhere, at worst, it's an example of pure stupidity by all people making or being (Superman) in the film.

Save the time and effort, Singer. Even early on you must have surely known that this shouldn't have been written into the story, or if so, don't' SHOW it happening, let alone deciding to film it, and let alone even further, deciding to cut it later.

DICK!!!
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16616
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby Fried Gold on Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:35 pm


I can't really see the point.

All the deleted scenes* are on the DVD, bar one - the Krypton spaceship flybys, which Singer said totalled about 30 seconds of footage at the beginning (some of it was shown in a Comic-con trailer a few months before the film was released and it's basically just a tiny white spaceship searching amongst some asteroids).

* Pretty much all the deleted scenes were superfluous to the story. There's only so many times you can see Young Clark running really fast in cornfields.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby RogueScribner on Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:25 am

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Even without looking at the link, it just comes across as a fuckwit example of wasting all that time, money and effort in making a huge difficult burdening sequence only at the end to think 'Actually, I should never have filmed that'. I know in film making and editing you can sometimes only make certain decisions in dropping a scene from a film in the cutting stage, but also I know that some things are painfully OBVIOUS that they should never have been filmed at all in the first place and you don't need special foresight to see this even before you film/edit then axe the damn thing.

Especially as film making is a helluva lot of effort and later a helluva lot of waste when you decide to put it on the cutting room floor, surely a sequence like Supes in Space can be decided to not even be filmed.

Here's my reasons why...

1. Superman was wasting his time looking for something that didn't exist.
2. Even if there could be plausibility or any doubt in the above, we don't buy it for a second, as it's OBVIOUS from the get go that Krypton is now more, as we ALL KNOW there was nothing left of Krypton by the MASSIVE EXPLOSION that happened to it in the first film.
3. Supes was a freaking idiot going up there in the first place (see above) and does NOTHING for his character as he spends God knows how many years chasing something that weren't even there.
4. Considering the above, it's a farking AWFUL plot device to explain why his whole life fell apart back on earth, losing Lois etc. Again, Superman is so DUMB! SUPERman of all people!!!

At BEST, this part of the story is slow and leads nowhere, at worst, it's an example of pure stupidity by all people making or being (Superman) in the film.

Save the time and effort, Singer. Even early on you must have surely known that this shouldn't have been written into the story, or if so, don't' SHOW it happening, let alone deciding to film it, and let alone even further, deciding to cut it later.

DICK!!!


In the original script, the whole Superman-searching-for-Krypton plot line was a little more fleshed out than what we ended up with in the movie. They probably felt the whole part about Lex Luthor setting it all up to make Superman look the fool was one villainous plot too many so they cut it out. And if you cut that out then the opening sequence loses its mojo since there's no longer any pay off. Though I guess you'd still get a sense of lost on Superman's part if they left it in, but I understand why it was cut.

I agree that these decisions are best made in the script stage and not after $10 million have been spent.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby RogueScribner on Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am

Fried Gold wrote:

I can't really see the point.

All the gaffneyed scenes* are on the DVD, bar one - the Krypton spaceship flybys, which Singer said totalled about 30 seconds of footage at the beginning (some of it was shown in a Comic-con trailer a few months before the film was released and it's basically just a tiny white spaceship searching amongst some asteroids).

* Pretty much all the gaffneyed scenes were superfluous to the story. There's only so many times you can see Young Clark running really fast in cornfields.


That's not true. The Krypton sequence would have taken up more time than that (as scripted, anyway). Also, there were other scenes not included on the DVD, such as an extended preamble to the plane sequence (Clark wasn't originally wearing the Superman suit, it was still in his suitcase back at the Daily Planet; he had to go back and change in the closet), and preteen Clark investigating the space ship in the barn.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby Tyrone_Shoelaces on Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:44 am

Luthor still has a line in the movie about giving astronomers the info about Krypton.
Image
User avatar
Tyrone_Shoelaces
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3955
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:33 am
Location: Northern Frontier

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby Fried Gold on Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:18 pm

RogueScribner wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:

I can't really see the point.

All the gaffneyed scenes* are on the DVD, bar one - the Krypton spaceship flybys, which Singer said totalled about 30 seconds of footage at the beginning (some of it was shown in a Comic-con trailer a few months before the film was released and it's basically just a tiny white spaceship searching amongst some asteroids).

* Pretty much all the gaffneyed scenes were superfluous to the story. There's only so many times you can see Young Clark running really fast in cornfields.


That's not true. The Krypton sequence would have taken up more time than that (as scripted, anyway). Also, there were other scenes not included on the DVD, such as an extended preamble to the plane sequence (Clark wasn't originally wearing the Superman suit, it was still in his suitcase back at the Daily Planet; he had to go back and change in the closet), and preteen Clark investigating the space ship in the barn.

I forgot about the Young Clark barn spaceship scene. Although I think that is on the DVD.

But still, I seem to remember Dougherty or Harris saying that the Krypton scene wasn't going to be that long. Then they thought "it'd be great to make it longer, let's do it in the next film".
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby RogueScribner on Sun Nov 15, 2009 6:01 pm

The DVD has where Clark discovers the spaceship via x-ray vision, but there's also a scene where he actually goes down to it for a closer look. That wasn't on the DVD. The RTK sequence wouldn't have been super long, but it easily could have taken up a couple of minutes of screen time. Everyone likes a good spaceship flyby. :wink:
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby TheButcher on Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:52 pm

From the Superman Home Page:
February 3, 2011: "Superman Returns" - Brandon Routh vs CGI
Steve Younis wrote:For a few years now Superman fans have wondered at Bryan Singer's decision to include computer generated images of Superman flying in "Superman Returns", rather than use live-action footage of the actor at his disposal, Brandon Routh.

Superman Homepage member JC Peralta contacted Jake Rowell, a special effects artist who worked on the film, and asked him this very question:
Q: Why were certain CGI effects for flying used instead of practical ones?

Rowell:
Thanks for the inquiry - I hope you liked the VFX in the film. I was happy with our digital Sups! We got a lot of mileage out of him. As for why? It was determined by the creative team that we use the digital version. They filmed a practical version for most shots - but it never looked quite right. Felt TV like or old 70-80 film - but with better lighting... Don't get me wrong - the flying rig was very impressive - but no matter how you shake it - it will never look like gravity is not an issue. That is the important part of having a guy appear to fly! So - in short, the digital version was easier to control - though it was more expensive. Most of the shots in the 777 plane sequence - was done digital - even the shots with Brandon (actor) - we would replace portions of the actor with the digital body and cape - but keep the head or do a transition to the real face. Really depends on the problem for the given shot.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Superman Returns (Now w/ 100% More Prada)

Postby TheButcher on Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:24 pm

Bryan Singer Says He Made 'Superman Returns' for 'Devil Wears Prada' Audience
Mike Bracken wrote:With Zack Snyder's 'Superman' reboot dominating the headlines lately (hurray for casting news!), it seems like the perfect time to take a look back at Bryan Singer's 2006 attempt to relaunch the franchise: 'Superman Returns,' which is exactly what the filmmaker did during a recent interview with website Voices From Krypton.

The director was unusually candid in discussing his 2006 rebooting of the franchise, which earned $200 million at the box office but still didn't recoup its production budget. Singer talks at length about what his vision was for the film, how that may not have jibed with what comic fans were expecting and why being too much of a fan of a specific property can make you less qualified to adapt it. Hit the jump for some of the highlights.

The most interesting element of the entire chat is Singer's discussion about how he was attempting to lure women into seeing a comic book movie. "What I had noticed is that there weren't a lot of women lining up to see a comic book movie, but they were going to line up to see 'The Devil Wears Prada,' which may have been something I wanted to address." It seems odd to think of a superhero movie aping something like 'The Devil Wears Prada,' but in retrospect, 'Superman Returns' does have a very female-friendly vibe and this explains why romance plays such a big part in what many expected to be a full-on action flick.

The bigger influence on Singer was his love of Richard Donner's original 'Superman,' something that colors 'Superman Returns' in a very distinct way. Donner's film never shied away from the romantic tension, and Singer admits to loving that nostalgic vibe so much that it played a major part in his own updating. "When you're making a movie you're thinking, 'Wow, I want to make a romantic movie that harkens back to the Richard Donner movie that I loved so much.' And that's what I did."

The problem seems to be that it wasn't what viewers expected. Audiences went in expecting Singer to do for Krypton's favorite son what he'd done for the X-Men. The film was never marketed as a nostalgic and romantic homage to Donner's film so women didn't flock to see it. Meanwhile, men who did were greeted with a superhero movie relatively light on superheroics.

Singer acknowledges the problems of the film, but remains proud of it -- although he does say he might make some changes if he had it all to do over again.

That's a tricky thing when you've built an audience that likes your comic book films and you deliver a certain tone, and then you bring this completely different tone to them.... It's hard, because I'm proud of it for what it is. I mean, there are a bunch of movies I've made where I'm, like, "Yuck, that was weak," or "That could've been better," and I can see why. But with 'Superman Returns' ... If I could go back, I would have tightened the first act. Maybe open with the plane or something.


When asked if he thinks he maybe paid too much homage to Donner's 'Superman: The Movie,' Singer agrees. The director uses the example of 'Star Trek,' saying he's too big a Trekkie to make a film in that universe because it would invariably just be a remake of 'The Wrath of Khan.' It's a danger all artists face; there's a fine line between paying homage to your inspirations and simply copying their style. It does often feel as though 'Superman Returns' spends more time trying to be like Donner's film than it does forging its own identity.

Still, Singer's film deserves at least some credit for trying to do something beyond offering up the standard comic book movie fare. It wasn't a success, but filmmaking, like all art, is about taking risks. Occasionally the gambles don't pay off, but a good artist learns from them and moves forward. Singer seems to have taken these lessons to heart.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby minstrel on Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:27 pm

WTF? It's okay, Bryan Singer, to make movies for a known target audience. You deceive your audience if they think they're the target audience and you duped them, because you targeted a different audience. Making a Superman film, not for a Superman audience, but for the "Devil Wears Prada" audience, screws both audiences.

It's actually frustrating to even think about this.
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby GothamAlleys on Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:11 pm

IMO Superman Returns wasnt as bad as many people claim it to be. I thought it was fine, and enjoyed the plane scene a lot even tho it did seem a little over the top. And btw, I think that as of now Luthor still wasnt portrayed by a right actor. Luthor is a big, chunky and menacing figure, kind of like Kingpin. I never got that from the past incarnations
Image
User avatar
GothamAlleys
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 am

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby Leckomaniac on Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:13 am

I don't understand how anyone was duped. Singer didn't cut the trailers. And, in MANY interviews prior to the launch of the film, he EXPLICITLY says that this very muh has a romantic comedy vibe. He didn't try to hide it. He was hoping to get females, who don't normally see this type of film, in the theatres and he was trying to pay homage to Donner. He was VERY up front about that.

The studio did the marketing. They did the trailer. If anyone felt duped, it is their fault and not Singers.

EDIT: I mean (from June 4th, 2006)

When asked over a recent dinner here to describe the action of "Superman Returns," he [Singer] spoke from Lois Lane's point of view: "This is a movie about what happens when old boyfriends come back into your life."
As the movie begins, Mr. Singer explained, Clark returns from a mysterious absence to discover that Lois has a fiancé and a child. This creates what may be the film's central quandary. "Even if you're the strongest man in the world," Mr. Singer said, "if the woman you love has found someone else that she's nearly married to that's not a bad guy, how do you figure out what your place is in that woman's life?"

He added, "I call it my first chick flick." [...]
Image
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby DennisMM on Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:26 pm

GothamAlleys wrote:IMO Superman Returns wasnt as bad as many people claim it to be. I thought it was fine, and enjoyed the plane scene a lot even tho it did seem a little over the top. And btw, I think that as of now Luthor still wasnt portrayed by a right actor. Luthor is a big, chunky and menacing figure, kind of like Kingpin. I never got that from the past incarnations
Image


Luthor was only a large, chunky, Kingpin-like figure for about five years of the past 73 years of Superman stories. John Byrne created that image in 1986, which was impressive more because Luthorwas written as a business tycoon rather than a mad scientist. But that image quickly went away when Luthor got cancer, then was replaced by his clone. He hasn't been studly in a long while, though he did get some of the menace back and return to being mostly a business figure some years ago. Actors from Lyle Talbot to Kevin Spacey played Luthor as thin because, well, Luthor has been thin.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16808
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby GothamAlleys on Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:57 pm

I know Luthor was chunky for a relatively short period of time, but thats the Luthor I got to know actually, plus even with the weight down he still seemed older and more menacing and more muscled than his onscreen counterparts
Image
User avatar
GothamAlleys
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 am

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby Leckomaniac on Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:04 pm

I never liked the "menacing all out super-villain Luthor".

For me, Luthor has only been written well in relatively short spurts. I loved the Azarello LUTHOR: MAN OF STEEL book. I want Lex to be a crusader for the human cause who, because of his sociopathic tendencies, takes it just a step too far.

He is the ultimate atheist, in a sense. He sees a god amongst men and resents the hell out of it. He wants humans to stop looking up and start looking within. He goes about making the world a better place in what he sees as the appropriate way: scientific breakthroughs, charity, etc. But people still look to Superman to save the day and it brings out Luthor's more sociopathic tendencies.

In other words, if the scales were tipped just a little bit Luthor would be the hero and Superman the villain. That is what makes their dynamic so interesting.
Image
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby DennisMM on Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:50 pm

Sorry, Gotham, not trying to patronize. Just my comic book guy coming out.

Lecko, but Luthor only cares about the goodwill of others to the extent that he can take claim or receive the praise of the people. I've never viewed him as any kind of antihero or could-have-been were Superman not present. He's not that deep, in my experience. He lives from the neck up, as they say.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16808
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby Leckomaniac on Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:04 pm

DennisMM wrote:Lecko, but Luthor only cares about the goodwill of others to the extent that he can take claim or receive the praise of the people. I've never viewed him as any kind of antihero or could-have-been were Superman not present. He's not that deep, in my experience. He lives from the neck up, as they say.


Eh, see I just think that makes him less interesting. I am willing to concede there is a lot of vanity on his part, but I think it works best when it comes from a place of "hey Superman gets credit all the time, why don't I?"

I think the character, as originally intended, has evolved to be much more complex. And it does a disservice to by making him go up against such a clearly immoral arch nemesis. It is easy to be the good guy when you are so obviously faced with a bad guy.

As I said, this Luthor has only been seen sparingly, but it is the Luthor I want to read about.
Image
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby Pacino86845 on Sun Mar 27, 2011 5:02 pm

Lecko, the Luthor you described sounds a lot like the Red Son depiction, which I am totally in support of... but still that's kind of a funny link considering your fervent hatred of Mark Millar.
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby Leckomaniac on Sun Mar 27, 2011 5:14 pm

Pacino86845 wrote:Lecko, the Luthor you described sounds a lot like the Red Son depiction, which I am totally in support of... but still that's kind of a funny link considering your fervent hatred of Mark Millar.


I enjoy Red Son.

Really, my hatred for Mark Millar began around 2005. I get a level of enjoyment out of Red Son, the first six issues of Ultimate FF, and the Ultimates. But his creator owned stuff and his personality send me through the roof.

And the Luthor I describe is almost taken exclusively from Lex Luthor: Man of Steel. It has been years since I read Red Son, but I'll have to revisit it to see if that also conforms to the Luthor in my head.
Image
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby TheButcher on Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:24 pm

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby TheBaxter on Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:23 am

Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19160
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby TheButcher on Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:33 pm

Bryan Singer: Why 'Superman Returns' Didn't Work
The 2006 movie Superman Returns was supposed to reignite the comic-book character for big-screen audiences and make a star out of unknown actor Brandon Routh. While critics praised the film, it underwhelmed at the box office, earning $391 million worldwide.

Now, with another Superman film in the works -- Zack Snyder's Superman: Man of Steel, which stars Henry Cavill in the title role -- Superman Returns director-producer Bryan Singer is admitting that he made some mistakes with his own film.

"I think that Superman Returns was a bit nostalgic and romantic, and I don't think that was what people were expecting, especially in the summer," Singer said in an interview with VoicesFromKrypton.com. "What I had noticed is that there weren't a lot of women lining up to see a comic book movie, but they were going to line up to see The Devil Wears Prada, which may have been something I wanted to address. But when you're making a movie, you're not thinking about that stuff, you're thinking, 'Wow, I want to make a romantic movie that harkens back to the Richard Donner movie that I loved so much.' And that's what I did."

Many moviegoers criticized the third act, in which Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) stabs Superman with a shard of kryptonite, but then the two characters don't appear onscreen again for the rest of the movie. In defending the scene, Singer said he tried to insert a religious analogy his storytelling, which was probably too "heavy" for a summer movie.

"I've always felt that the origin of Superman is the story of Moses -- the child sent on a ship to fulfill a destiny," said Singer, a producer on the upcoming X-Men: First Class. "And this was a story about Christ -- it's all about sacrifice: The world, I hear their cries. So what happens? He gets the knife in the side and later he falls to the earth in the shape of a crucifix. It was kind of nailing you on the head, but I enjoyed that, because I've always found the myth of Christ compelling and moving. So I hoped to do my own take, which is heavy s--- for a summer movie."

Singer said if he were to take on another Superman film, he would do a reboot of the franchise by remaking the original and would make it a more "balls-to-the-wall action movie" with a different pace from Superman Returns.

Despite the disappointing performance of Superman Returns, Singer still says he's "proud" of the film.

"There are a bunch of movies I've made where I'm, like, 'Yuck, that was weak' or 'That could've been better,' and I can see why. But with Superman Returns. ... If I could go back, I would have tightened the first act."
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby TheButcher on Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:56 am

ComicsAlliance Reviews 'Superman Returns' (2006), Part Two
Chris Sims and David Uzumeri wrote:David: Don't make a movie expressly engineered for continuity nerds and then screw up the continuity. Also, don't make a movie expressly engineered to appeal to the nostalgia of continuity nerds for a 100-million dollar budget. Just don't make Superman Returns, really.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

Postby TheButcher on Sun May 01, 2016 7:29 am

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Previous

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests