Give Brandon Routh and Singer another shoot.
-
violence_and_electronic_music — 9 years ago(June 10, 2016 01:12 PM)
How is that stupid or emo? I related to his pain about seeing a woman you love move on and make a life with someone else, I think most men can. He's a super MAN, not some angel that's always going to be optimistic and look on the bright side after viewing the desolate remains of his home planet and coming back to a world overrun by violence, terrorism, and modern warfare (shown when he's flipping through channels on the Kent farm toward the beginning of the film) along with his love leaving him.
Also, the reason Clark saves the world is not because he's some kind of angel sent here to deliver us from evil, he does it because he loves Lois. There is no other reason. Jor-el sent him to Earth to lead us, but in Singer's version Clark clearly only cares about being with Lois. Everyone on earth is happy he's back except the one woman he saves the earth for, that's a complicated dilemma.
He flies up with Lois above the city. "What do you hear?" "Nothing." "I hear everything. You say the world doesn't need a savior, but every day I hear people crying for one." That's another cool dilemma never present in previous Superman films. What's it like being able to do anything, but not being able to save everyone? What's it like when the reason you save the world, the reason you love humanity, doesn't want you to save her or look out for her anymore? That's called emotions, not being "emo."
Lois wrote an article called "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman," for beep's sake. He goes in for a kiss when he brings her back down to the Daily Planet, and the pain on his face when she rejects it is all-too-human and straight-up ballsy to put in a superhero film. I read somewhere that Clark is the reality and Superman the secret identity in Singer's version. He's still Clark when he puts the costume on, he still feels and loves Lois. How bad do you think he feels that she rejected him for a pilot, another man who can fly? That's called good writing by the way, like most of this film. Pay attention if you watch next time and have a shred of empathy if you're capable of it (which I doubt by your response.) -
tmm_8705 — 9 years ago(June 11, 2016 01:30 AM)
All of what you laid out is exactly why I am not a fan of Singer's interpretation. For me, and as far as other interpretations are concerned, Superman is supposed to be above all of that. He's not supposed to be this mopey guy that feels BURDEN over being the "savior" that it pains him like it does for Spider-Man. He's not saving the world for some girl. Superman does what he does because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO. He's not the guy that will potentially risk breaking up a family just to sneak a kiss on Lois. He doesn't abandon his home on Earth without telling anyone except his poor old mom he'll be gone for five years to search for some long dead planet that shouldn't mean anything to him more than just a special heritage. This is Singer trying to make Superman relatable by turning him into some loner that feels so isolated. What works wonderfully in X-MEN doesn't really translate well with SUPERMAN. Had this not been a Superman movie but an entirely new character, I may give it more leeway. With Superman, it's crossing too many lines.
The key to what makes Superman isn't just that he's relatable, it's that he's someone we aspire to be. He's supposed to represent the best of us. He can still be flawed and make mistakes from time to time if the story really delivered on that and stays true to the character. Why would I want to aspire to be a creepy stalker that was too afraid of telling Lois that he was going to abandon his home for several years in search for some dead planet? I get what Singer was trying to go for, but it just doesn't mesh well with Superman.
He's not "super MAN" as you put it, he's SUPER man. That's what Singer failed to understand, and that's why no sequel was made to this. -
Otherwordz — 9 years ago(June 12, 2016 05:56 PM)
If you read comics, you'd know that Superman leaves Earth all the time. He's also searched for Krypton in the comics. And you act like it's some unheard of thing for a man to visit where they came from, especially if he found out that his real family might be there, or at least other people like him if it wasn't destroyed.
-
tmm_8705 — 9 years ago(June 13, 2016 02:28 AM)
If you read comics, you'd know that Superman leaves Earth all the time. He's also searched for Krypton in the comics. And you act like it's some unheard of thing for a man to visit where they came from, especially if he found out that his real family might be there, or at least other people like him if it wasn't destroyed.
Except in those instances Superman's trip was very brief and swift. The animated series had Supes being able to search around the remains of Krypton before discovering Kara, and it didn't require five whole years and without telling anyone what he was up to. It's not just what he does in SR, it's how he does it that's out of character.
Singer was trying to bring Superman into the 21st century with relatable angst and intense emotional storylines, and honestly I don't care about your preconceived notions about what Superman should or shouldn't be. Interact with the movie on the movie's own level, don't criticize a film because it didn't fit your definition of what it should be.
Turing characters angsty isn't going to automatically make a character more relatable for audiences. Again, what worked brilliantly for X-Men isn't necessarily something that can work for all films. When it comes to Superman films, audiences want a film with adventure, excitement, joviality, and a lead character they would more want to aspire to be. They want to have fun! Those first two Reeve films did an incredible job reintroducing Superman in the post-Nixon 70s era because they stayed true to the character while still giving him emotional storylines. They didn't have to turn Superman into Dirty Harry or other popular gritty characters from that time. I guarantee you had SUPERMAN RETRUNS been more true to the tone of those Reeve films it would have been far more embraced.
Heck, IRON MAN has been an excellent substitute for those Reeve films that it's what WB should have aimed more for. Instead, they wanted to apply Christopher Nolan's aesthetic onto Superman because they don't understand what worked for Batman doesn't work for everything else, and once again we get a dark brooding Superman that is so insecure of his purpose that he hardly smiles.
It's too bad. Both Routh and Cavill could have made great Supermans but they're let down with the films. -
thevintagecola — 9 years ago(June 29, 2016 11:29 AM)
It's not just what he does in SR, it's how he does it that's out of character.
what's in character for Superman anymore? It's been established in the more recent films and comics that he's allowed to have flaws. Snapping a neck will bring about a legion of fans coming to his defense but leaving earth for a few years and having nothing of consequence happen to it while he's gone makes others want to tar and feather him. It's just funny.
Turing characters angsty isn't going to automatically make a character more relatable for audiences.
the more recent Snyder films and its fans say otherwise
I guarantee you had SUPERMAN RETRUNS been more true to the tone of those Reeve films it would have been far more embraced.
People were upset at Returns in the first place for being too similar to the Reeve films. Ten years ago most people were expecting a clean slate
Superman just doesn't get much leniency from audiences because the property isn't as beloved and backed by Warner as Batman is. It's hard for the company to find an audience for Superman because Batman is an easy crowd pleaser yet the latter is so different and it's a hard sell for young male audiences. -
tmm_8705 — 9 years ago(July 01, 2016 01:23 AM)
People were upset at Returns in the first place for being too similar to the Reeve films. Ten years ago most people were expecting a clean slate
Ten years ago there were plenty of fans out there that were ready to go with the idea of doing a continuation of the Donner films. Doing a sequel to the first two while ignoring III and IV actually seemed promising. The issue isn't that it was a continuation of what Donner did but that it rehashed too many plot elements from that first film and what was offered new was underwhelming and controversial.
Superman just doesn't get much leniency from audiences because the property isn't as beloved and backed by Warner as Batman is. It's hard for the company to find an audience for Superman because Batman is an easy crowd pleaser yet the latter is so different and it's a hard sell for young male audiences.
Truthfully it's not all that hard to make a crowd pleasing Superman film. WB's problem since they retained the film rights in 1993 is that they never believed in the property because they overthink what audiences want and assume they find Superman too corny. It's such a silly sentiment because there literally was a time when people didn't think a Superman film would work in post-Nixon 70s era when dark gritty films made up most of cinema, but SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE exploded at the time because that was exactly what audiences want.
WB never understood that. That's why they sold the film rights in the 1970s because they assumed it would never work. From Jon Peters to Bryan Singer to Zack Snyder/Chris Nolan, we're shown again and again that there's too much overthinking over the property. If WB would just calm down and make a straight up Superman film that's as bright and vibrant as even IRON MAN, they would have no trouble finding an audience.
As long as they don't believe in Superman, we'll never get a Superman film that is loud and proud of itself. We'll be stuck with what Singer and Snyder offered: Brooding strongman that feels burden over being a hero. It's so pathetic. -
thevintagecola — 9 years ago(July 01, 2016 11:29 AM)
but that it rehashed too many plot elements from that first film and what was offered new was underwhelming and controversial.
unfortunately that's what all modern attempts at Superman films are nowadays.
WB's problem since they retained the film rights in 1993 is that they never believed in the property because they overthink what audiences want and assume they find Superman too corny.
fans of Zack Snyder's Superman films say otherwise though, going as far as claiming they wouldn't have been Superman fans if it weren't for Snyder's interpretation of the character. Ironically by trying to make the character more serious by overcompensating in the physical aspect the property comes off as cheesy and dumb because there's no heart behind it -
tmm_8705 — 9 years ago(July 01, 2016 08:35 PM)
I wish someone would come up to WB and just point out the John Byrne 1986 reboot comic MAN OF STEEL. It's really the best take at modernizing Superman while sticking true to what makes the character enduring. SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES is pretty much a great adaptation of that and may be the best take on that character. If WB could for once have faith in that property, we'd get something truly worthwhile.
The real shame is that it would now be harder to convince audiences of going to a Superman film after we've had SUPERMAN RETURNS, MAN OF STEEL and DAWN OF JUSTICE taint the brand. Three miserable films in a row. -
deeterville — 9 years ago(January 01, 2017 10:48 PM)
With this I completely agree. Superman isn't Batman. He doesn't sulk. He doesn't do the poor me thing. Not that he is "Pollyanna" about things. He just sees it will turn out right.
For my taste Superman Returns was closer to the way Supes is in the comics and animated movie. MoS was too brooding and dark. That works for Batman, but not Superman. In my opinion anyway. -
violence_and_electronic_music — 9 years ago(June 12, 2016 07:53 PM)
Singer was trying to bring Superman into the 21st century with relatable angst and intense emotional storylines, and honestly I don't care about your preconceived notions about what Superman should or shouldn't be. Interact with the movie on the movie's own level, don't criticize a film because it didn't fit your definition of what it should be.
-
AndrewGS — 9 years ago(September 13, 2016 02:12 PM)
That reaction seems seems pretty absurd, though, for him after he had abruptly left her (despite them apparently sleeping together) and the planet and was gone for years, of course she will have been angry and probably would have moved on.
I kind of hate when superheroes cause their own problems and then self-pity.