logo Sign In

SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW — Page 9

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Originally posted by: THX
Supes borrowed a costume ring from Barry Allen to hide his boots in. I know it doesn't make sense now, but just wait for "Superman Forever."

I'm personally awaiting "Superman and Robin: A Joel Schumaker Film." All the bitching about how gay Singer is will quickly be forgotten.


Isn't Singer openly gay?

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Yep. But there's Singer gay, and then there's Schumaker gay.

And then, I suppose, there's John Waters gay.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
As long as no gay man ever again handles the direction of a Batman movie I think I can manage.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Really I feel the sexual orientation of a director, writer, musician, actor, etc, etc, etc doesn't mean anything at all about the quality of their work. All you can really ask yourself is- do you like what they created? Is it good, bad?

Now what I *don't* like is when a creator foists their opinion or some particular viewpoint on an audience in an unappropriate setting or in an un-announced way. By this I mean if filmmaker 'X' wants to make a statement about capital punishment they should feel free to make a film about it- and let it be known that 'this is my statement about capital punishment'. Whereas when you go to see a Batman film you expect to see a Batman film... not a film which essentially stands as a homo-erotic fetishist's showcase of rubber nipples and oiled musclemen. At this point the audience disconnects and even if they can't put their finger on it they know something is wrong.

Thus the problem I see with 'Superman Returns'- audiences expected to see Superman but instead of a heroic, honorable and (gasp) patriotic character they saw a neurotic, brooding, stalking, whining, emo character who was painted as being the second coming of Jesus. And looking at the box office results the general public had that same disconnect. Its a technically well crafted film and is not 'Batman & Robin' horrible but I'd imagine people walking out of theaters going... 'hmm... uh, ok. That wasn't any fun. What opens next week?' Bryan Singer infused his own sense of alienation (from his own adoption, orientation, etc) into the film. And that's fine- but not Superman. I do understand how he could come up this train of thought though- 'Superman was given up by his parents, so was I. Superman was adopted, so was I. I don't feel I fit in at times, so Superman must not. Lois Lane loved Superman and so do.... (er, nevermind)' So he made his idea of Superman using only 'Superman the Movie' as outside context. Like I said before- he should have made up his own super hero and made a film about it... and I bet it could have been huge and original. I sort of look at 'Alien 3' the same way- very good sci-fi film... just not a very good 'Alien' franchise film.

But very little of any of this has to do with Singer's (or anyone's) sexual orientation.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: greencapt
he should have made up his own super hero and made a film about it... and I bet it could have been huge and original. I sort of look at 'Alien 3' the same way- very good sci-fi film... just not a very good 'Alien' franchise film. This is a very good point/suggestion

Originally posted by: greencapt
But very little of any of this has to do with Singer's (or anyone's) sexual orientation.
Also a good point.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
I still dont' see how Superman of 'Returns' was whiny and emo. Yes, he was miffed about Lois moving on, but he got over it and still saved the freaking continent.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: greencapt
Really I feel the sexual orientation of a director, writer, musician, actor, etc, etc, etc doesn't mean anything at all about the quality of their work. All you can really ask yourself is- do you like what they created? Is it good, bad?

Now what I *don't* like is when a creator foists their opinion or some particular viewpoint on an audience in an unappropriate setting or in an un-announced way. By this I mean if filmmaker 'X' wants to make a statement about capital punishment they should feel free to make a film about it- and let it be known that 'this is my statement about capital punishment'. Whereas when you go to see a Batman film you expect to see a Batman film... not a film which essentially stands as a homo-erotic fetishist's showcase of rubber nipples and oiled musclemen. At this point the audience disconnects and even if they can't put their finger on it they know something is wrong.

Thus the problem I see with 'Superman Returns'- audiences expected to see Superman but instead of a heroic, honorable and (gasp) patriotic character they saw a neurotic, brooding, stalking, whining, emo character who was painted as being the second coming of Jesus. And looking at the box office results the general public had that same disconnect. Its a technically well crafted film and is not 'Batman & Robin' horrible but I'd imagine people walking out of theaters going... 'hmm... uh, ok. That wasn't any fun. What opens next week?' Bryan Singer infused his own sense of alienation (from his own adoption, orientation, etc) into the film. And that's fine- but not Superman. I do understand how he could come up this train of thought though- 'Superman was given up by his parents, so was I. Superman was adopted, so was I. I don't feel I fit in at times, so Superman must not. Lois Lane loved Superman and so do.... (er, nevermind)' So he made his idea of Superman using only 'Superman the Movie' as outside context. Like I said before- he should have made up his own super hero and made a film about it... and I bet it could have been huge and original. I sort of look at 'Alien 3' the same way- very good sci-fi film... just not a very good 'Alien' franchise film.

But very little of any of this has to do with Singer's (or anyone's) sexual orientation.


Agreed.
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: greencapt

Now what I *don't* like is when a creator foists their opinion or some particular viewpoint on an audience in an unappropriate setting or in an un-announced way. By this I mean if filmmaker 'X' wants to make a statement about capital punishment they should feel free to make a film about it- and let it be known that 'this is my statement about capital punishment'. Whereas when you go to see a Batman film you expect to see a Batman film... not a film which essentially stands as a homo-erotic fetishist's showcase of rubber nipples and oiled musclemen. At this point the audience disconnects and even if they can't put their finger on it they know something is wrong.

Sadly, this seems to be a thing with Superman. Christopher Reeve, while a great Superman, turned Superman IV into his own personal political statement on nuclear weapons, and it made for a lousy movie. Personal statements are very hard to fit into superhero movies without making a bad movie.


Originally posted by: greencapt

Thus the problem I see with 'Superman Returns'- audiences expected to see Superman but instead of a heroic, honorable and (gasp) patriotic character they saw a neurotic, brooding, stalking, whining, emo character who was painted as being the second coming of Jesus. And looking at the box office results the general public had that same disconnect.



Why must Superman have all the emotional problems,etc? Because the audience must be able to 'connect' with the hero? Why can't Hollywood accept that Superman is just a good person, and wants to do the right thing?

Originally posted by: greencapt

But very little of any of this has to do with Singer's (or anyone's) sexual orientation.


Agreed. Anyone can mess a movie up or make a great movie.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Number20
Originally posted by: greencapt

Now what I *don't* like is when a creator foists their opinion or some particular viewpoint on an audience in an unappropriate setting or in an un-announced way. By this I mean if filmmaker 'X' wants to make a statement about capital punishment they should feel free to make a film about it- and let it be known that 'this is my statement about capital punishment'. Whereas when you go to see a Batman film you expect to see a Batman film... not a film which essentially stands as a homo-erotic fetishist's showcase of rubber nipples and oiled musclemen. At this point the audience disconnects and even if they can't put their finger on it they know something is wrong.

Sadly, this seems to be a thing with Superman. Christopher Reeve, while a great Superman, turned Superman IV into his own personal political statement on nuclear weapons, and it made for a lousy movie. Personal statements are very hard to fit into superhero movies without making a bad movie.


Originally posted by: greencapt

Thus the problem I see with 'Superman Returns'- audiences expected to see Superman but instead of a heroic, honorable and (gasp) patriotic character they saw a neurotic, brooding, stalking, whining, emo character who was painted as being the second coming of Jesus. And looking at the box office results the general public had that same disconnect.



Why must Superman have all the emotional problems,etc? Because the audience must be able to 'connect' with the hero? Why can't Hollywood accept that Superman is just a good person, and wants to do the right thing?

Originally posted by: greencapt

But very little of any of this has to do with Singer's (or anyone's) sexual orientation.


Agreed. Anyone can mess a movie up or make a great movie.


Double agreed.

Have you ever heard the jokes some people make about Christopher Reeve's paralysis? I was flipping channels once and I came across this red neck stand up comedy thing once and Larry the Cable Guy was on there and he said "This TV show was so bad, Christopher Reeve stood up, walked over, and changed the channel." A similar joke that has circulated is "This movie was so bad that Christopher Reeve stood up and walked out of the theater."
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: greencapt
Really I feel the sexual orientation of a director, writer, musician, actor, etc, etc, etc doesn't mean anything at all about the quality of their work. All you can really ask yourself is- do you like what they created? Is it good, bad?

Now what I *don't* like is when a creator foists their opinion or some particular viewpoint on an audience in an unappropriate setting or in an un-announced way. By this I mean if filmmaker 'X' wants to make a statement about capital punishment they should feel free to make a film about it- and let it be known that 'this is my statement about capital punishment'. Whereas when you go to see a Batman film you expect to see a Batman film... not a film which essentially stands as a homo-erotic fetishist's showcase of rubber nipples and oiled musclemen. At this point the audience disconnects and even if they can't put their finger on it they know something is wrong.

Thus the problem I see with 'Superman Returns'- audiences expected to see Superman but instead of a heroic, honorable and (gasp) patriotic character they saw a neurotic, brooding, stalking, whining, emo character who was painted as being the second coming of Jesus. And looking at the box office results the general public had that same disconnect. Its a technically well crafted film and is not 'Batman & Robin' horrible but I'd imagine people walking out of theaters going... 'hmm... uh, ok. That wasn't any fun. What opens next week?' Bryan Singer infused his own sense of alienation (from his own adoption, orientation, etc) into the film. And that's fine- but not Superman. I do understand how he could come up this train of thought though- 'Superman was given up by his parents, so was I. Superman was adopted, so was I. I don't feel I fit in at times, so Superman must not. Lois Lane loved Superman and so do.... (er, nevermind)' So he made his idea of Superman using only 'Superman the Movie' as outside context. Like I said before- he should have made up his own super hero and made a film about it... and I bet it could have been huge and original. I sort of look at 'Alien 3' the same way- very good sci-fi film... just not a very good 'Alien' franchise film.

But very little of any of this has to do with Singer's (or anyone's) sexual orientation.


Excellent post. I didn't know that Schumacher was gay, but I suppose that that explains a lot. I wholeheartedly agree that Singer should not be judged, but rather the film, although films are almost always an extension of the director in some way. Singer's seual orientation should not bear on how people feel about his work. Interesting thought on SR, but then again, Batman Begins was darker and it took a while to catch on too. SR was an unbalanced but highly interesting film. I don't think that it was driven solely by Singer's ego by any means. His focus on the theme of alienation worked better for the X-Men films than for SR. I suppose that one could always think of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films. They are very distinctly his own (the shaky cam), but their themes and ideas are draw from the comics. Singer, in SR, was trying to make a big adventure film with Superman (i.e. the big, larger than life fun in Donner's film) in it and interweave it with what you mentioned. As he works on the story but seldom on the sceenplays, so I do think that to an extent, he knows him limitations. The box office returns have beens decent, and are still going up. There's a sequel being planned, so maybe Singer will get it right the next time. He used the Donner pictures as his sort of springboard to build upon, rather than the comics (which is not a good or bad thing in and of itself), but I think that that also had the effect of anchoring him to them a bit too much. Superman Returns was not a great film. It wasn't up to par with Superman: The Movie, Superman II, Spider-Man 2, X2, or Batman Begins, but it wasn't from lack of trying. However, I cannot, in good conscience, call it a bad film either. Everyone whom I've spoken too has had similar thought to the ones that many have expressed here. I liked what Singer was trying to do with SR. I just don't think that it entirely worked. But he also didn't make it into a Michael Bay "wham-bam-Superman-is-America-and-he'll-help-us-fight-the-evil-racial-stereotype-terrorists-look-at-how-big-my-special-effects-budget-is" festival either. There was a genuine attemt at something. They wanted to go the same direction as Batman Begins, but Superman is diametrically different from Batman. Singer, to his credit, didn't try to make Superman Begins and ride on back of Nolan's excellent picture either. Superman is a difficult character to work with. His invincibilty means that he'll always run the risk of becoming boring, unless you're careful. You can, of course, do what Donner did and run with that, but those film are also the product of a different style and time (which is part of the problem with SR). Superman Returns is a fascinating look at "There's a great movie in here somewhere" syndrome, although not nearly as severely as, say, Robocop 2. The problems and successes of the film are sort of hard to put into words, and in any case, this post is too long already, but I do hope that I've made some interesting points.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Number20
Originally posted by: greencapt

Thus the problem I see with 'Superman Returns'- audiences expected to see Superman but instead of a heroic, honorable and (gasp) patriotic character they saw a neurotic, brooding, stalking, whining, emo character who was painted as being the second coming of Jesus. And looking at the box office results the general public had that same disconnect.



Why must Superman have all the emotional problems,etc? Because the audience must be able to 'connect' with the hero? Why can't Hollywood accept that Superman is just a good person, and wants to do the right thing?
Why does evryone have such a problem with Superman being upset about Lois having a kid and living with Cyclops? It's totally understandable and, as Chaltab mentionmed, when it comes to the crunch he puts his personal issues aside and saves the world.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your FatherWhy does evryone have such a problem with Superman being upset about Lois having a kid and living with Cyclops? It's totally understandable and, as Chaltab mentionmed, when it comes to the crunch he puts his personal issues aside and saves the world.


I was actually thinking about just that today and this is what I came up with- to my mind Superman's whole pursuit of Lois in this film is astoundingly emotionally selfish. Its his OWN fault that Lois or the world for that matter (though stated but not shown in the film) has moved on- he's the one who took off without a word to anyone (with the possible exception of his mother). If the SR characterization of him was half a man or half the hero that he's supposed to be he wouldn't be shocked in the least after HE RAN AWAY for five years, no matter what his reason for doing so. If he truly needed to go to Krypton he would have/should have just told the world- and especially Lois if he really loves her- 'hey I have to do this thing... please wait for me'. But not once in the film do I remember seeing an inkling of understanding from him that this is his fault. Instead he follows Lois repeatedly trying to re-insert himself into her life... a life that has moved on. Great themes for a Lifetime network movie-of-the-week but not heroic, let alone *super* heroic.
Author
Time
Post link
I actually considered it a wise decision for him not to announce to the world that he was leaving. That would be a huge incentive for the criminals of the world to take advantage of the situation.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: greencapt
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your FatherWhy does evryone have such a problem with Superman being upset about Lois having a kid and living with Cyclops? It's totally understandable and, as Chaltab mentionmed, when it comes to the crunch he puts his personal issues aside and saves the world.


I was actually thinking about just that today and this is what I came up with- to my mind Superman's whole pursuit of Lois in this film is astoundingly emotionally selfish. Its his OWN fault that Lois or the world for that matter (though stated but not shown in the film) has moved on- he's the one who took off without a word to anyone (with the possible exception of his mother). If the SR characterization of him was half a man or half the hero that he's supposed to be he wouldn't be shocked in the least after HE RAN AWAY for five years, no matter what his reason for doing so. If he truly needed to go to Krypton he would have/should have just told the world- and especially Lois if he really loves her- 'hey I have to do this thing... please wait for me'. But not once in the film do I remember seeing an inkling of understanding from him that this is his fault. Instead he follows Lois repeatedly trying to re-insert himself into her life... a life that has moved on. Great themes for a Lifetime network movie-of-the-week but not heroic, let alone *super* heroic.


Exactly.

I actually considered it a wise decision for him not to announce to the world that he was leaving. That would be a huge incentive for the criminals of the world to take advantage of the situation.

Except the criminals would eventually realize that he was gone. Villains notice little things like the usual red & blue clad hero who usually thwarts them not showing up to thwart them.
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: greencapt
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your FatherWhy does evryone have such a problem with Superman being upset about Lois having a kid and living with Cyclops? It's totally understandable and, as Chaltab mentionmed, when it comes to the crunch he puts his personal issues aside and saves the world.


I was actually thinking about just that today and this is what I came up with- to my mind Superman's whole pursuit of Lois in this film is astoundingly emotionally selfish. Its his OWN fault that Lois or the world for that matter (though stated but not shown in the film) has moved on- he's the one who took off without a word to anyone (with the possible exception of his mother). If the SR characterization of him was half a man or half the hero that he's supposed to be he wouldn't be shocked in the least after HE RAN AWAY for five years, no matter what his reason for doing so. If he truly needed to go to Krypton he would have/should have just told the world- and especially Lois if he really loves her- 'hey I have to do this thing... please wait for me'. But not once in the film do I remember seeing an inkling of understanding from him that this is his fault. Instead he follows Lois repeatedly trying to re-insert himself into her life... a life that has moved on. Great themes for a Lifetime network movie-of-the-week but not heroic, let alone *super* heroic.


Once again, yes, he does do this, and yes, it isn't exactly the most heroic thing. But even Superman isn't perfect. And in the end he realizes that Lois has moved on and saves the world anyway, nearly dying in the process...

4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Yep. But there's Singer gay, and then there's Schumaker gay.

And then, I suppose, there's John Waters gay.

Vincente Minnelli was gay too, FWIW (though not openly).

Author
Time
Post link
I thought that Superman had pretty much settled that he couldn't be with Lois in Superman II. Or was this one of the things that made this a "sort of" sequel?
As for the 5 years away thing, I think that this is also a bit too much. Didn't he apologize for being gone is Superman II and letting Zod and company take over? So why did he just turn around and leave after promising not to do that again?

No, as someone commented earlier, Superman isn't perfect, but I think that many of the things he does in this movie aren't quite in character for him, in my opinion.

Author
Time
Post link
And then, I suppose, there's John Waters gay.


John Waters is gay? He so different in so many other ways that I never even stopped to think about that.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Okay, just for the record, I didn't mean to imply that all gay men are bad directors. In fact, I actually liked Joel Shumacher's film A Time to Kill...

I just mean that Batman and Robin have too many connotations and gay jokes hovering about them (largely thanks to Fredrick Wertham) for it to work.

4

Author
Time
Post link
I feel kind of sorry for Joel Schumacher. He'll never live down that rubber nipple controversy.
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
If the movie hadn't sucked, I think we might have forgiven the rubber nipples eventually.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Yeah. Honestly, I don't believe the rubber nipples are that big of a deal, but it's just the most convenient thing to bash about the movies since there's so much else going wrong.

EDIT: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Batgirl didn't have rubber nipples, did she? What a shame. What a double-standard shame.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Well, I checked some pictures of the Batgirlsuit yesterday and, well, sort of...

The suit has some vaguely nipple-esque points at the end, but they are nowhere near as defined as the ones on the Batman and Robin suit.

*Cannot believe he just typed the phrase 'vaguely nipple-esque'*

4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab

*Cannot believe he just typed the phrase 'vaguely nipple-esque'*


*Greatly appreciates that not only did Chaltab spend time *looking* at Batgirl's nipple region but also typed the phrase 'vaguely nipple-esque'*
Author
Time
Post link
i FINALLY got around to seeing this movie. and OMFG it was fan-bloody-tastic. i was really impressed. well okay i was a little distracted by the whole clark-kent thing, but wow when brandon first came out wearing the old school suit and glasses he looked SOO MUCH like christopher reeve. blow away, he was absolutely gorgeous. and he even played the part well of clumsy old clark around lois! i really enjoyed it, i'm going back with some gfs to see it again cuz it's the best eye candy movie ever.
i also thought it had a better story line than pirates 2, which is why it's now my fav summer movie!

~* you know you love me... xoxo *~