Syd Lexia wrote:

RegalSin wrote: A bunch of incoherent crap where he went after the Jews yet again. RegalSin, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Oh, and you're banned.

Wait, for real? Wow.

BILLY MADISON!!!! YES!!!

Tebor's Immediate Superman Thoughts

I just got back from watching the movie I've been waiting for since 1987. Due to the immediacy of this post, some of my thoughts and opinions may change.

I'll also keep out as many spoilers as I can.

First, "Returns" does not change the motto to "all that stuff". I don't know where that came from. Was it from Skeletor's questions to his staff? If so, it has been misqouted and should be dropped. There is nothing to get upset about. That line is not uttered in the film.

Now, I have to admit, sitting in the theater I felt disgusted and upset throughout the whole film. "Superman Returns" is a movie that would not make money if it wasn't for the fact it's Superman.

That said, I talked over the movie a little bit with the people I watched it with. My anger subsided, so my opinions may easily change.

"Superman Returns" is simply a dull, uninspiring, drawn out mess. I felt impatient with the film early on and that feeling never went away. Action sequences are very rare and when they happen they are unimpressive. I assume people expect a "hero montage" of Superman saving people like in his other films. Well, there is one, but it is not much of a montage. For a character that means so much to me, I find it disgraceful that I was not filled with hope nor any form of "gooey" feelings I'd get from watching "Smallville". Superman seems to represent a symbol, but a symbol that is taken for granted. I don't think any of the characters in the film felt inspired by anything he did.

There's a "major" action sequence before the film's final action-climax (not including the LOTR style ending) which I felt absolutely let down by. Considering all the money spent on making this film, how the hell does the action turn into something that's weak as a kitten?

Granted, "Superman Returns" is not your common superhero movie. It is a character drama. Right there, I do NOT recommend this movie for kids. The content is pretty questionable for youths 6 and younger, but the pacing is what it going to get kids under 16 pissed at this film. However, anyone over the age 18 should see through the silliness of the film's drama.

Scenes are lifeless thanks to a lack of music and ambiant sound. Especially in the daily planet. Except when there's danger, I don't think any score is played in the planet. Thus, all the scenes there feel lengthy and awkward. Ottman's score is actually pretty lackluster. The real magic of the film's music comes from any theme John Williams composed back in 1977. Singer, I know you're friends with him, but he was the WRONG choice for this film.

Focusing on Bryan Singer, he directs the movie the way John Cassavetes would have (lots of unevenly paced scenes with meandering, meaningless dialogue). I detect emotion wanting to come through in the script, but I did not feel any sympathy toward anyone in the film... except for one scene.

There is one great scene in the film. For spoilage reasons, I can't discuss it, but I will say that there was one shot in particular of this scene which made me remember why I'm such a Superman fan. I'll post about it in detail in the near future.

I also want to point out that the two funniest things in the movie are the (gay?) Jimmy Olsen and a shot homage to Superman I+II involving a certain "Phantom Zone". Man, I hope I'm not the only one who caught that.

Do I recommend "Superman Returns"? Hard to say. It is two and half hours that FEELS like two and a half hours. The movie drags. I mean DRAGS like crazy. DRAGS more than the first Superman film. There are a few moments where you will feel like: "Wow, Superman is hardly even in this!" It's not a particularly emotionally involving movie at all... but it is Superman... right?

EDIT: I usually don't like to discuss about actors unless they were obviously bad choices, but I will say Kevin Spacey = Great Lex Luthor. Personified the character masterfully. *claps*

Tebor's "Some Time Later" Superman Thoughts

I've slept on it for a couple of days. I also rewatched Superman I, II, and III broken up in my free time.

The new Superman isn't really a sequel to I and II. Returns may allude to them, but there's too much retconning to call it a true sequel. What bothered me most while watching the film was that GREEN crystals make the crystal cities, not the silver ones. There are a few dozen other differences, but the green crystal was the most obvious IMO.

Watching "Superman III" today made me realize that "Superman Returns" is a rather shitty remake of it. They lost Richard Pryor and the supercomputer subplot (thank God) and put back in Lex Luthor. Then they replaced Lana Lang and her kid with Lois Lane and her kid... Superman dealing with inner struggles over physical. The action being really, really subpar... Trying to recreate Kryptonite and finding it in a museum (a scene from Superman IV, I might add). There's a few other similarities, but the big one is Lana and her kid.

"Superman Returns" has been really forgetful to me. I've only been able to recall the good/really bad parts. It's not a movie I'm jumping up to go see again. I've also been reading some other people's reviews who all seem scared to say the truth. IGN gave it 3 and a half stars despite a completely negative review, for example. It isn't a poorly made movie, but it doesn't work; it feels incomplete. I still feel that way. Maybe they had to rush it or something, I don't know.

Is the movie still as bad to me today as it was as I first saw it? Nah. I think a lot of hostility came from the utter disappointment I felt after watching it. I'll still probably be dissing it all summer and make jokes about it as I do the first X-Men movie.

There is good in the film and I think my initial review didn't really express that. The funny parts are really funny. About 80-85% of the time Superman is on screen it's "Superman done right". I did feel sympathy for one character in the film: the dog. Again, I'll post about my favorite moments after the 4th.

I do hope Singer either gets new screenwriters for the next Superman, or his whole team is axed altogether. I'm not sure where he wants the series to go, but he left it in a place where it will be damn hard to make a good sequel.

Jon Peters is still a producer on the film, kinda hard to believe after all the hate mail he must have been given.

What I want to know is what happened to his rule of: "There needs to be an action beat every 10-15 pages" that he told Kevin Smith. I'm glad most of his comments were thrown away, but they should've kept this one.

Tebor's "I just saw Superman again!" Response

I seriously wasn't goint to see "Returns" again in theaters, but when people call me, I feel compelled to go.

The movie felt better upon a second viewing. It actually didn't feel as long. The little things that bothered me before didn't bug me so much.

Things like:
*Why does Marlon Brando say "Kyrptin" but Superman says "Krypton"?
*Superman could lift both the top of a mountain and the goddamn moon, who cares about a dinky... well, you know.
*Why is Superman such a voyeristic jerk?
and so on...

Maybe because I knew what was going to happen made it more enjoyable. I was better set to watch and enjoy scenes than simply find faults with them.

I also noticed a few things in the film that came back later in the film. Not to spoil anything, but there's a random Smallville flashback in the beginning of the film, that I'm sure I understand why it's there now.

BTW, I did notice much more score this time around. I was also in a different theater altogether (AMC over Cinemark), so that might have had something to do with the sound. Scenes didn't feel as awkward this time around, but the audience seemed just as eerily silent as they were when I first saw it. The silence ALWAYS felt like disappointment.

But, yes, it was more enjoyable upon a second viewing. Go figure.

Quote:

Mike Dougherty and Dan Harris, the two credited screenwriters for 'Superman Returns' have changed Superman’s famous motto, "Truth, Justice and the American way", to "Truth Justice and ... all that stuff".

I just found out that in the 18th episode of "Smallville" (circa 2002) Clark Kent says: "I stand for truth, justice, and... other stuff". Sounds like the substitution has been going on for awhile. However, it is true that the "American way" was coined for Superman during the war eras, so we can't be completely blameless.

Okay, it's been one week and the holiday weekend is officially over. Spoilers are now fair game.

So... Superman kinda dies but doesn't there... Why did Luthor only have one scene with Sups again?

At least Singer addressed that Superman and Lois totally did "it" back in Superman II, but revealing the Superkid now? A sequel is going to be even more tough to do now... And it better have some supervillain in it. Even Fantastic Four had Doctor Doom for about six minutes.

DarkMaze wrote:

Tebor wrote: At least Singer addressed that Superman and Lois totally did "it" back in Superman II, but revealing the Superkid now? Yes, they did "it..." WHEN SUPERMAN WAS HUMAN! So why the flying fudge does the kid have super powers? And what was that ridiculous garbage about the kid having asthma and allergies, and then suddenly not? Superman's powers are caused by the Earth's yellow sun -- they don't just "kick in" at a certain age. I think Singer's been doing too many X-Men movies.

That pissed me off too!

My reasoning:
A). It's not really a sequel, because only green crystals can make the fortresses in the first two films (Or implied that they can), so that Superman and Lois could've done "the dirty deed" while Superman was Superman and not Clark "I got my assed whooped" Kent.
B). The random ass Smallville flashback was showing that not all of Superman's powers developed at once. It took time (hence flight). "Smallville" is the same way in that his powers develop during maturity. I'm willing to buy that, because it still sounds kinda biological.
C). Asthma... Well, I think it's like that movie SIDEKICKS and you can quit asthma anytime you feel like it... or when Chuck Norris needs your help. But chances are, he never had it. Lois is such a security freak (despite leaving her kid alone at school) that she forced the condition on him. I'd like to believe Chuck Norris helped him kick asthma's ass though. His tears cure cancer, you know, too bad... Yeah, I'm almost sick of that joke too... but not quite yet... HE'S NEVER CRIED

Tebor wrote:

I did feel sympathy for one character in the film: the dog. Again, I'll post about my favorite moments after the 4th.

Ah, the dog. What the hell, Superman? Really. What the fuck were you thinking!?

Honestly, I thought the dog was going to be revealed to be Krypto, Superman's real life dog, but no. Instead, we have the dog whimper. Am I supposed to laugh? Each time I saw the film, I said: "Superman, you jerk". I'm not the only one who felt that way, as a number of "critics" complained about that scene too. I'm not sure why that moment is there and I'm sure as hell not sure why they added such a sad whimper. Maybe it was to tell the audience: this Superman is a different Superman. A jerky, more unlikable, more depressed, socially-awkward Superman, who knows?

But, I wanted to mention that two of my favorite moments in the film were:
* Superman watching TV.
* The wide matte painting of people outside the hospital.

Superman watching TV sounds really boring, until you realize "It's Superman!" and what is he watching? Depressing, depressing news. Imagine being Superman and leaving Earth for 5 years to return to find the world in more chaos than when you left. Do you show up and announce: "I'm going to rid our planet of all nuclear missles!" Hell no, you reestablish yourself as Clark Kent first, because that's who you are. None the less, it would seem the Iraq war isn't going on in this film as there's no mention of it. Other than that, Superman watching the world on the brink is kinda moving... but not as much as:

The matte painting of people outside the hospital. Why the matte painting? Because it's a little obvious when the separation line is clearly discernible. It's understandable, you can't have too many extras in a scene which would flood the internet full of "Superman dies!" rumors.

Seriously though, the wide shot is emotional. The newspaper headline? Bullocks. The TV shot of people holding up signs? Not quite. No, it takes scope to make something as major as Superman on the verge of death to hit home. The wide shot of Lois going through the crowd gives a sense of how crowded the hospital that housed Superman really would be. It's the only shot in the whole film that I felt like people cared about the man of steel.

What of the baseball field scene, you ask? That scene bugged me for two reasons: Superman comes off as a parlor trick during half time and that it was the biggest piece of film phoniness this side of immediate global freezing. It's only there so that lots of people can cheer. You could get the same reaction from people by having that plane come down on a freeway... the LA freeway! Imagine the visuals of that scene? Imagine the heighten danger; its harder to control cars while carrying a plane than overpaid athletes.

Oh, I almost forgot to feel sorry for that car Superman crushes with the globe... I kinda hoped Jimmy would fess up to being the owner, but we're just left to wonder, who's going to sue Superman?

Okay, Superman isn't very likable in the film, but why not? Everyone dumps on Superman and now with Batman's popularity shooting up about seven hundred percent it seems we have to play to the audience. Most people think Superman's a boring character. That's he's a boy scout and too powerful. Most writers take that to mean that Superman should have emotional issues. Usually it's issues being Superman instead of the Kevin Smith theory: "Superman’s angst is not that he doesn’t want to be Superman. If he has any, it’s that he can’t do it all; he can’t do enough and save everyone. It’s not enough to make him want to quit being Superman; it’s enough to make the guy stay up at night so he’s out doing shit constantly."

Doesn't it all just bog down a hero? Oh well, "Returns" has it moments and is fairly good. And in reality, all 'good' means is: it could've been worse.

How worse?
*Luthor could've been Kryptonian
*Superman could've left for Krypton at the end of the film.
*McG could've directed.
*Brianiac could've had a gay sidekick robot.
*GIANT SPIDER

The list could go on forever.

I'm still hoping the franchise gets a reboot ala "Forever" in as many movies or less.

Sock wrote:

It didn't work, Tebor. I still like the movie.

Oh no, I didn't mean that last post as a response to either of you.

Super cool you liked the movie!

I was just keeping the promise I'd discuss my favorite scenes at a later date. Although after a weekend of talking about the film, my favorite scenes got skewed a bit, hence the backhanded tone of the post. It's kinda sarcastic and kinda honest, so anyone's guess to what I meant is as good a guess as any.

EDIT: Though I should mention that the "Forever" comment is a reference to "Batman Forever" restarting the Batman franchise. Not for Superman to go into that direction tonally.