Jump to content

New Supes is....


jahue

Recommended Posts

If Bryan Singers orientation determines the outcome of something established then it does warrant comments and observations.

 

The movie was sooo flawed, even Singer in his arrogance forbid people to bring Superman comics on the set because they hampered his flawed and selfish vision of the character. He made one good movie Usual Suspects while everything else was total garbage. I remember casual fans hated the movie, it was a joke.

 

The costume sucked

The story sucked

The casting sucked...........there is nothing that can be done with those things all flawed.

 

 

All opinions, my friend.

 

I may even agree with some of them.

 

You can bash his ability as a director/storyteller. But they're not linked to his sexual orientation. Sorry.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like IT did turn into sexual orientation influenced movie making debate. I enjoyed Superman Returns: the cast wasn't so bad except the Lois Lane, the plot was kind of stupid and predictable but the plane scene was really cool . As for Brandon Routh I don't think he was that bad he kind of looked like Chris Reeve which is what they were going for speaking of which In my opinion that was where the movie failed they tried too much to emulate the Donner films instead of the movie getting its own identity. I really hope in the new one they come up with something different start new again and please please get another villain that's not Lex Luthor or have him take a backseat to General Zod, Metallo or someone else I want some old school physical superpowered fistfight. I don't the mind new actor he did a good job in Count of Monte Cristo(one of my favorite movies) so I think he will be good in this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw, Superman Returns wasn't so bad. It had issues sure, but certainly nothing that couldn't have been cleaned up with a decent sequal. I kinda liked it.

 

As for Singer, his alleged orientation is immaterial. The man's previous body of work, Apt Pupil, The Usual Suspects, X-Men, etc. speaks for itself.

 

Man, x men is not a good example of his good body of work lol. To me "sky high" was better than any xmen movie, more use of powers to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw, Superman Returns wasn't so bad. It had issues sure, but certainly nothing that couldn't have been cleaned up with a decent sequal. I kinda liked it.

 

As for Singer, his alleged orientation is immaterial. The man's previous body of work, Apt Pupil, The Usual Suspects, X-Men, etc. speaks for itself.

 

Man, x men is not a good example of his good body of work lol. To me "sky high" was better than any xmen movie, more use of powers to.

 

Everyone's opinion is of course subjective, but general audiences and a fair number of "comic fans" would disagree. In fact a fair number of folks still consider X2 to be one of the best superhero movies ever made.

 

PS: I liked Sky High. Kind of a shame it didn't do better as I would've liked to have seen a sequel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what bugged me about Routh's Superman?

 

His hair.

 

Seriously, whoever the hairstylist on SupeReturns was needs to be banned from Hollywood. It was this awkward over hairsprayed sculpted mess. It was like a bad combover plastered to his head with vaseline. Awful.

 

That is what hair styles were like back in the "70's"( and the movie was supposed to be a continuation from the earlier films which were set back on the late 70's/early 80's)--and Clark/Superman were not exactly up to speed on the latest styles having been away from earth for 5 years. Yeah, Superman Returns is supposed to be set around 1985 or so, I guess.

Clark is SUPPOSED to be a style-throwback-so he'd be a wet-head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hated returns. The story, the writers, actors and the fact it was trying to follow up the Donner films (which were good back then but would be considered cheesy now) to me it seemed that teens , people with little exposure to Superman, and hardcore" nothing with a Superman name is bad" fans. Liked it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Bryan Singers orientation determines the outcome of something established then it does warrant comments and observations.

 

The movie was sooo flawed, even Singer in his arrogance forbid people to bring Superman comics on the set because they hampered his flawed and selfish vision of the character. He made one good movie Usual Suspects while everything else was total garbage. I remember casual fans hated the movie, it was a joke.

 

The costume sucked

The story sucked

The casting sucked...........there is nothing that can be done with those things all flawed.

 

 

All opinions, my friend.

 

I may even agree with some of them.

 

You can bash his ability as a director/storyteller. But they're not linked to his sexual orientation. Sorry.

I think they affected his choice is costumes. It was very metro sexual. I remember reading an article that mentioned it in the review of the movie.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hated returns. The story, the writers, actors and the fact it was trying to follow up the Donner films (which were good back then but would be considered cheesy now) to me it seemed that teens , people with little exposure to Superman, and hardcore" nothing with a Superman name is bad" fans. Liked it.

 

Untrue. I fall into neither of those categories, but I liked Superman Returns all right, as did every single one of my friends who basically fall into the "casual/passing fan of Superman" category.

 

Of course, I'm also not the type that lets one or two decisions I disagree with (the Kid, Lois' casting) ruin an entire movie for me. I do agree that following up the Donner films was not a good idea, but at the same time I enjoyed some of the easter-eggs they worked into the film based on the Donner stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like IT did turn into sexual orientation influenced movie making debate. I enjoyed Superman Returns: the cast wasn't so bad except the Lois Lane, the plot was kind of stupid and predictable but the plane scene was really cool . As for Brandon Routh I don't think he was that bad he kind of looked like Chris Reeve which is what they were going for speaking of which In my opinion that was where the movie failed they tried too much to emulate the Donner films instead of the movie getting its own identity. I really hope in the new one they come up with something different start new again and please please get another villain that's not Lex Luthor or have him take a backseat to General Zod, Metallo or someone else I want some old school physical superpowered fistfight. I don't the mind new actor he did a good job in Count of Monte Cristo(one of my favorite movies) so I think he will be good in this one.

 

The plane scene was the only scene I liked. I do go and watch it on youtube every now and then but that is it.

 

Routh didn't look the part to me. Recently I saw him in Scott Pilgrim (awesome movie by the way) and he looked good to me and I wondered why it just didn't work out with him. He didn't have the physical look at the time and was surrounded by a horrible story, and a horrible cast.

 

It is a shame Luthor has been so overused that people don't want to see him. I actually think Luthor is the villian to start a reboot but understand why people don't want to see him, even when they included Zod, Ursa, Non, Nuclear Man, Luthor was always behind it. I don't mind Luthor just as long as its good and we see Suiperman being super. Seriously, I don't shy away from wanting heart pounding rescues and feats of strength........however story comes first. The story and acting is what made the first movie a cinematic masterpiece

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw, Superman Returns wasn't so bad. It had issues sure, but certainly nothing that couldn't have been cleaned up with a decent sequal. I kinda liked it.

 

As for Singer, his alleged orientation is immaterial. The man's previous body of work, Apt Pupil, The Usual Suspects, X-Men, etc. speaks for itself.

 

Man, x men is not a good example of his good body of work lol. To me "sky high" was better than any xmen movie, more use of powers to.

 

Agreed, just watched Sky High recently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what bugged me about Routh's Superman?

 

His hair.

 

Seriously, whoever the hairstylist on SupeReturns was needs to be banned from Hollywood. It was this awkward over hairsprayed sculpted mess. It was like a bad combover plastered to his head with vaseline. Awful.

 

That is what hair styles were like back in the "70's"( and the movie was supposed to be a continuation from the earlier films which were set back on the late 70's/early 80's)--and Clark/Superman were not exactly up to speed on the latest styles having been away from earth for 5 years. Yeah, Superman Returns is supposed to be set around 1985 or so, I guess.

Clark is SUPPOSED to be a style-throwback-so he'd be a wet-head.

 

It was a follow-up in terms of story but I never heard anything about it being set in the 80's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think people are opposed to the inclusion of Lex Luthor so much as wanting Superman to have an opponent or opponents that he can actually have a physical confrontation with. Luthor can still even be the "primary" villain (as you indicate, pulling the strings from behind the scenes) but yes...let Superman do more than just lift progressively larger objects and let bullets bounce off of him. At the same time, give us something that can threaten Superman beyond just glowing green rocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! I cannot believe some of the hate for Superman Returns. Was it perfect? Heck no, but I still watch it on Bluray from time to time. Do you know what I don't own in any way shape or form? The trash that is called Superman IV. If ever there was a movie that needs to be gone it is that. Superman reveals his identity to Lois, takes her for that overdone fly through the skies, lands and kisses her so that she forgets who he is. Not only is that super corny, but it is 10x more terrible than Routh's costume in Returns.

 

If I was going to rank the Superman movies in order it would be Superman, Superman II, Superman Returns, Superman III, and Superman IV. Superman III and Returns are pretty close, but where Superman Returns suffers from a poorly casted Lois and a flawed, but not movie ruining attempt to give Superman a son, Superman III was getting into the Batman and Robin cheezy department.

 

PS What I just wrote above is called an opinion, defined as: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty

 

Because 95% of what is written in this thread is an opinion, not founded on proof or certainty, they don't matter too much in the end. If I don't agree and you don't agree, chances are nobody'll change their mind anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was going to rank the Superman movies in order it would be Superman, Superman II, Superman Returns, Superman III, and Superman IV. Superman III and Returns are pretty close, but where Superman Returns suffers from a poorly casted Lois and a flawed, but not movie ruining attempt to give Superman a son, Superman III was getting into the Batman and Robin cheezy department.

I have to agree, Superman III was a turkey. But it does have some good points. For one, I've been a fan of Annette O'Toole since long before she played Mama Kent on Smallville.

 

Second, even if it wasn't used to anywhere near it's full potential, the killer "Super-Computer" from the climax is one of the coolest concepts I've seen in a superhero movie. (Maybe Nolan can rip it off for his film.)

 

Finally, and most importantly, the Junkyard Battle. A lot of fans consider that one scene to be the finest piece of fim to come out of ALL the Supermovies put together.

 

 

Was the killer Super-Computer based at all on Brainiac? Does anyone know? Every time I watch it I think of him.

 

Loved the junkyard battle, though the concept that using nicotine to create kryptonite turned superman bad was silly.

 

Wow! Just realized that this thread was about the new Superman who was cast (he certainly looks the part) not about how bad Superman Returns was or gay bashing. Hard to know that by reading it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! I cannot believe some of the hate for Superman Returns. Was it perfect? Heck no, but I still watch it on Bluray from time to time. Do you know what I don't own in any way shape or form? The trash that is called Superman IV. If ever there was a movie that needs to be gone it is that. Superman reveals his identity to Lois, takes her for that overdone fly through the skies, lands and kisses her so that she forgets who he is. Not only is that super corny, but it is 10x more terrible than Routh's costume in Returns.

 

If I was going to rank the Superman movies in order it would be Superman, Superman II, Superman Returns, Superman III, and Superman IV. Superman III and Returns are pretty close, but where Superman Returns suffers from a poorly casted Lois and a flawed, but not movie ruining attempt to give Superman a son, Superman III was getting into the Batman and Robin cheezy department.

 

PS What I just wrote above is called an opinion, defined as: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty

 

Because 95% of what is written in this thread is an opinion, not founded on proof or certainty, they don't matter too much in the end. If I don't agree and you don't agree, chances are nobody'll change their mind anyway.

Superman IV was heavily flawed that is for sure but it keeps to the core of the character. I think the overall story was good but and it was the first "comic book-like" superhero movie. I still prefer the idea of a Nuclear Man who can't be powered unless he is within sunlight (which is a terrible story arc) to Superman chasing Krypton, rather have the forgetful kiss (horrible story arc) than superbaby - but again like you mentioned it comes down to choice and personal likes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was going to rank the Superman movies in order it would be Superman, Superman II, Superman Returns, Superman III, and Superman IV. Superman III and Returns are pretty close, but where Superman Returns suffers from a poorly casted Lois and a flawed, but not movie ruining attempt to give Superman a son, Superman III was getting into the Batman and Robin cheezy department.

I have to agree, Superman III was a turkey. But it does have some good points. For one, I've been a fan of Annette O'Toole since long before she played Mama Kent on Smallville.

 

Second, even if it wasn't used to anywhere near it's full potential, the killer "Super-Computer" from the climax is one of the coolest concepts I've seen in a superhero movie. (Maybe Nolan can rip it off for his film.)

 

Finally, and most importantly, the Junkyard Battle. A lot of fans consider that one scene to be the finest piece of film to come out of ALL the Supermovies put together.

 

Of course, if you still think Supes III couldn't have been worse, just remember, only a last minute change of heart kept the studio from incerting a laugh-track.

 

Superman III was and wasn't that bad. At the very least it had moments, all of what you mentioned and the fun honest acting of Chris Reeve as the bad Superman. Reeve played that part very good. Aside from the plane scene, what moments does SR have????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hated returns. The story, the writers, actors and the fact it was trying to follow up the Donner films (which were good back then but would be considered cheesy now) to me it seemed that teens , people with little exposure to Superman, and hardcore" nothing with a Superman name is bad" fans. Liked it.

 

Untrue. I fall into neither of those categories, but I liked Superman Returns all right, as did every single one of my friends who basically fall into the "casual/passing fan of Superman" category.

 

Of course, I'm also not the type that lets one or two decisions I disagree with (the Kid, Lois' casting) ruin an entire movie for me. I do agree that following up the Donner films was not a good idea, but at the same time I enjoyed some of the easter-eggs they worked into the film based on the Donner stuff.

 

lol well you'd be the first lol. my bro-inlaw and best friend liked it at first but after the excitement of a new superman movie died down in them, they could not see past all the faults.

 

Supes comes off as a dead beat, stalker that abandons earth with out giving a reason and then tries to move in on Louis when she already had a great boyfriend who not only accepts her child but saves supes butt . The kid thing is bad in so many ways, plus a hybrid would of probably result in some bad ass kid , not some sickly wimp. Lex is a cheesy gold digger that has a moronic plan (give me a smart evil smallvile lex any day over that sad junk). No battle suit for Lex, Superman versus his inner demons????? lol, those are just the biggest problems , there's lots more, but that's just what I think.

 

I think it depends on how deeply you view the movie, superficially, i guess it's ok but not what I would want in a Superman movie, don't get me wrong I'm not some a super nit picky comic accurate guy especially with DC, but this supes seemed to stray to much from the formula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supes comes off as a dead beat, stalker that abandons earth with out giving a reason and then tries to move in on Louis when she already had a great boyfriend who not only accepts her child but saves supes butt . The kid thing is bad in so many ways, plus a hybrid would of probably result in some bad ass kid , not some sickly wimp. Lex is a cheesy gold digger that has a moronic plan (give me a smart evil smallvile lex any day over that sad junk). No battle suit for Lex, Superman versus his inner demons????? lol, those are just the biggest problems , there's lots more, but that's just what I think.

 

I've written before on my criticism of the movie, but I think the biggest problem the film had was its incongruity in the main character.

Its established that Superman is searching for his own identity--he wants to know conclusively who he is and where he stands in his relationships between Earth and Krypton. he also wants to be extra sure whether he is truly alone in the Universe.

 

Pretty big compulsion there.

 

That is why he disappears for 5 years ( relativistic time I'm told--his actual time could have been as little as 5 weeks away). Obviously forsaking Earth for that length of time means his personal quest is very deeply felt.

 

So........he comes back, re-discovers his live and the people around him, and things have changed. His one love has moved on, and she's found a new love.

And then he discovers he's fathered her kid.

 

And then he FORSAKES the kid!!

Waitaminute........ they just established that he's willing to LEAVE EARTH TO ITS OWN DEVICES TO ANSWER HIS BURNING QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS OWN IDENTITY, mostly because he's ALONE in the universe.

Then he's discovers this son and heir.........and he just tells the kid and his mother " I'll be around" and flies off?????

 

Huh??? WTF??

 

Uh-uh, it doesn't work.

This is the problem with the premise they set up; to be true to himself, Superman would forsake Earth AGAIN to raise the child. He would abandon his job as Superman, because all the emotional foundations they set up says that his heritage is more emotionally important to him. There is no portrayed turmoil in his choice, he just goes from thwarting Luthor to "oh well".

Bullshit.

Its a classic example of one of those lines that shouldn't be crossed with a character, because once crossed there's nowhere else to go.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now here's a question for those tired of seeing Lex. What if he constructed his battle suit in the film and became, physically, a more formidable opponent for Superman? Would it be acceptable to use Lex then?

 

Nah. Because its still Lex.

 

Lex doesn't work as a villian in these movies either, because he's supposed to be Superman's counterpoint: the mind against his muscle.

The thing is, Lex Luthor isn't very smart.

He surrounds himself with nincompoops.

 

His strength isn't his "genius", its his ego--which is why its so easy to tear him up.

All he REALLY does to vex Superman is cause mischief on a massive scale. Not a lot of people die because of what he does.

I suppose one could reason that even greater than his ego are his insecurities, because they compel him to fill his gang with people that are far dumber than he is--to the point of detriment. He cannot handle the competition, so he stacks the deck in his "favour" when it comes to smarts, which works AGAINST him.

But that is tired now.

We've seen that in.......what......4 incarnations now?

 

 

If anything, have Lex be the instigator of the next villain, something he pulls just before being locked up at the start of the movie and we don't see him again. The new foe could be Brainiac, Mettallo, Doomsday..........I don't care ( ok, I do care, NO BIZARRO!). Just make it someone other than Lex.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main hope with Christpoher Nolan on this project is that he does not try to make it a dark movie like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Batman works well in the darkness to create fear, but Superman needs to work in the light in order to inspire, after all he is supposed to embody the best of all human traits. I hope they keep it pretty basic with a brief recap of Superman's orgin and then move on with the story. I agree that if Lex is involved, he needs to be behind the scenes as the evil genius that he is, not the comic relief that he has always been in the movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a follow-up in terms of story but I never heard anything about it being set in the 80's.

The original movies clearly took place in the late 1970's ( automobiles, styles of dress, technologies etc) --Superman Returns takes place 5 years after Superman 2--so they tell us. That means that if Superman: the Movie, and Superman 2 took place in 1979/1980-ish.......then 5 years later is..........do the math.

 

Yeah, Superman Returns SHOULD be set in 1985, not in 2007--otherwise his "son" has been 5 years old for 22 years now.

 

I think Lois and everyone else would have picked up on that...

 

 

 

Its another gross incongruity in a movie that is just full of them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Find Action Figures on Ebay


×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE