Superman Returns - SPOILERS!!!! SPOILERS!!!!

[SolidLiquidFox]

Skywalker Ranch

indeed

 

[Anton Phibes]

Everything that Batman Begins was the Superman movie is the opposite.

1. Superman leaving Earth for 5 years: Superman would never leave the Earth defenseless for 5 years. In the regualr DCU he may, but it is a planet filled with metahumans. In this movie, he is the only superpowered being and would not leave Earth for a selfish reason. But he had a chance to learn about Krypton and see it as it was. That's why he had the crystals. There was absolutely no reason for him to abandon Earth for 5 years. I thought it was awful.

2. The plot of the movie is Luthor wants to make a Kryptonite crystal island so he can be king of it and beat on Superman. And this is the plot. Nuff said.

3. Out of character: Clark Kent goes and knocks back Buds with Jimmy Olsen. Out of character.

4. Lois Lane shacking up with some guy and has an out of wedlock child with him? In character for Lois Lane?

5. But wait..... that child belongs to Superman!!! I don't even wanna go there. How is this a sequel when Superman (atrocious films also) 3,4, Lois isnt pregnant? Yet she gets pregnanat form the one "lets get hithched moment in Superman 2? Or do any of the previous Superman movies besides the first one count?

6. In the fortress of Solitude, Luthor listens to Jor-El explain that by the time that Kal-El views the messages on the crystal he will have been dead many hundreds of years. Yet Supes can make it to the ruins of Krypton and back in right around 5 years?

Superman has become over the years the epitome of a higher moral standard. Like the classic characters such as Lee Falk'sThe Phantom, The original Lone Ranger, The original Captain America, and many others. But now, in an attempt to "modernize" our heroes we accept a Captain Ameirca that kills, and a Superman that sires children out of wedlock. I just think the whole thing reeked of Bryan Singer tugging on Superman's cape. I went into the film with very high hopes. It has its special effects moments and that was it. I left the film upset and called everyone I knew valued my opinion on Superhero films and told them I was disappointed. I know this is going to get me bashed...but not everyone loved this film. I love the character of Superman. Its because I do that this film upset me. It amazes me how someone who can so brilliantly capture the essence of what makes the X-Men so wonderful...misses the mark so badly with the Man of Steel. Peace.

Phibes

 

[Anton Phibes]

Oh yeah, and he lets the goon squad of Luthor's get crushed by giant chunks of kryptonite when he throws the thing into the sun making him guilty of manslaughter by allowing them to be crushed when he couldve took the extra 5 seconds to fly them off to prison b4 he tosses the crud into the sun. Superman may have killed someone in 1938 but he was revised and has been an icon of truth, justice and...all that other stuff for years.

 

[pjam]

I enjoyed it more the second time I saw it.



However, one thing is still confusing to me...

When the plane carrying the space shuttle is rocketing dangerously away into the upper reaches of the earth's atmosphere, the camera cuts to the typical scene of people crowding together on the sidewalk watching the drama unfold on a bunch of televisions in a store window conveniently located next to the bar that Superman is walking out of. My question: Where is the camera located that is capturing that live footage???

Maybe the jets?

Don't know but there was no Brando Rolex moment I could find.

 

[Dusty]

,..thankfully,.. you ain't a movie critic and work on a collectible company,... would you share this opinion in public if sideshow had the dc license and were working on superman returns merchandise? just curious,..but i really don't think so

...by the way,..i liked this movie a whole lot,.. :chew i give it 5 stars out of 5

Um, I'm just a lover of movies in general, and I call it how I, personally, see it. Luckily, movie taste is a matter of opinion I liked the movie, didn't love it - so I placed it right in the middle of the road (actually, even a lot of the positive reviews (by 'movie critics') I've seen on Rotten T and others have only given it 3/5). With regards to whether I would say that if it was a Marvel license, that's just silly - you know what my LEAST favorite comic book movie EVER is? HULK - I would rate that one negatively if I could! Besides, I think I remember giving X3 only a *tad* bit better - 3/5 stars.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

Um, I'm just a lover of movies in general, and I call it how I, personally, see it. Luckily, movie taste is a matter of opinion I liked the movie, didn't love it - so I placed it right in the middle of the road (actually, even a lot of the positive reviews (by 'movie critics') I've seen on Rotten T and others have only given it 3/5). With regards to whether I would say that if it was a Marvel license, that's just silly - you know what my LEAST favorite comic book movie EVER is? HULK - I would rate that one negatively if I could! Besides, I think I remember giving X3 only a *tad* bit better - 3/5 stars.

lol i agree with you Dusty, but i like Hulk for some reason.. dont know why maybe because im a huge Eric Bana fan?? ever since his awesome role as Hoot in Blackhawk Down and in Munich i dont think he can do wrong.

 

[LOTRFan]

4. Lois Lane shacking up with some guy and has an out of wedlock child with him? In character for Lois Lane?

5. But wait..... that child belongs to Superman!!! I don't even wanna go there. How is this a sequel when Superman (atrocious films also) 3,4, Lois isnt pregnant? Yet she gets pregnanat form the one "lets get hithched moment in Superman 2? Or do any of the previous Superman movies besides the first one count?

6. In the fortress of Solitude, Luthor listens to Jor-El explain that by the time that Kal-El views the messages on the crystal he will have been dead many hundreds of years. Yet Supes can make it to the ruins of Krypton and back in right around 5 years?

Superman has become over the years the epitome of a higher moral standard. Like the classic characters such as Lee Falk'sThe Phantom, The original Lone Ranger, The original Captain America, and many others. But now, in an attempt to "modernize" our heroes we accept a Captain Ameirca that kills, and a Superman that sires children out of wedlock. I just think the whole thing reeked of Bryan Singer tugging on Superman's cape. I went into the film with very high hopes. It has its special effects moments and that was it. I left the film upset and called everyone I knew valued my opinion on Superhero films and told them I was disappointed. I know this is going to get me bashed...but not everyone loved this film. I love the character of Superman. Its because I do that this film upset me. It amazes me how someone who can so brilliantly capture the essence of what makes the X-Men so wonderful...misses the mark so badly with the Man of Steel. Peace.

Phibes

I could not agree more, excellent points!!!

It is sad, but all of our heros now must be flawed, it's as if we have to knock everyone down to our level. Superman was sent to be a light and show us the way, not be compelled by our vices and succumb to the people he is trying to help.

As for Luthor and the crystals, did anyone really buy that Jor-El thought he was Superman!?

 

[pjam]

I could not agree more, excellent points!!!


As for Luthor and the crystals, did anyone really buy that Jor-El thought he was Superman!?

Hello? Jorel is dead. Can dead people hear?

Jorel prepared and recorded these to help his son understand who he is where he came from, how to adapt to Earth and how to make himself useful -- to realize his potential for the good of mankind.

The crystals are like tape recordings or books in tape form.

 

[LOTRFan]

Hello? Jorel is dead. Can dead people hear?

Jorel prepared and recorded these to help his son understand who he is where he came from, how to adapt to Earth and how to make himself useful -- to realize his potential for the good of mankind.

The crystals are like tape recordings or books in tape form.

Oh no, I understand that, but Spacey's line was mis-placed. He said something along the lines of "he thinks I am his son ..." That is what I was referring to.

 

[pjam]

Oh no, I understand that, but Spacey's line was mis-placed. He said something along the lines of "he thinks I am his son ..." That is what I was referring to.

I know, but Lex GAINED ACCESS meant only for Kalel, so Jorel would speak as if he were talking to his son to anyone who gained access to the crystals.

I hope that explains it better...

 

[Michael Crawford]

Everything that Batman Begins was the Superman movie is the opposite.

1. Superman leaving Earth for 5 years: Superman would never leave the Earth defenseless for 5 years. In the regualr DCU he may, but it is a planet filled with metahumans. In this movie, he is the only superpowered being and would not leave Earth for a selfish reason. But he had a chance to learn about Krypton and see it as it was. That's why he had the crystals. There was absolutely no reason for him to abandon Earth for 5 years. I thought it was awful.

Of course he would. First, he's left us 'defenseless' before. Second, there is a chance Krypton exists - he's going to find out for sure. That is a completely normal reaction, and one that's not surprising in the least.

2. The plot of the movie is Luthor wants to make a Kryptonite crystal island so he can be king of it and beat on Superman. And this is the plot. Nuff said.

I will wholeheartedly agree that everything to do with Lex was lame. But that's not really the plot of the movie - this film is about Superman, Lois, Richard, and the loneliness that is inherent in Supes position. That part of this movie is excellent.

3. Out of character: Clark Kent goes and knocks back Buds with Jimmy Olsen. Out of character.

Huh? Yes, Clark did occasionally mingle with his co-workers. It would be a tad odd if he didn't, wouldn't you think? I didn't find it out of character.

4. Lois Lane shacking up with some guy and has an out of wedlock child with him? In character for Lois Lane?

Well, not if you still think it's 1940.

5. But wait..... that child belongs to Superman!!! I don't even wanna go there. How is this a sequel when Superman (atrocious films also) 3,4, Lois isnt pregnant? Yet she gets pregnanat form the one "lets get hithched moment in Superman 2? Or do any of the previous Superman movies besides the first one count?

Actually, no, they don't count. Singer and company said that at the start. 3 and 4 didn't happen, thank God.

6. In the fortress of Solitude, Luthor listens to Jor-El explain that by the time that Kal-El views the messages on the crystal he will have been dead many hundreds of years. Yet Supes can make it to the ruins of Krypton and back in right around 5 years?

Yes, he'd have been dead for many hundreds of years. The planet of Krypton is many of light years from here. The original trip that baby Supes would account for all this time, and some for of stasis would have been necessary for him to sleep - and not age - through out the trip.

The five year trip gets a little trickier. The only way he could have done that is with ship technology that would have allowed him to travel many times the speed of light. Not sure how he pulled that one off, but it's clearly why he needed a ship and couldn't just fly there under his own power.

Superman has become over the years the epitome of a higher moral standard. Like the classic characters such as Lee Falk'sThe Phantom, The original Lone Ranger, The original Captain America, and many others. But now, in an attempt to "modernize" our heroes we accept a Captain Ameirca that kills, and a Superman that sires children out of wedlock. I just think the whole thing reeked of Bryan Singer tugging on Superman's cape. I went into the film with very high hopes. It has its special effects moments and that was it. I left the film upset and called everyone I knew valued my opinion on Superhero films and told them I was disappointed. I know this is going to get me bashed...but not everyone loved this film. I love the character of Superman. Its because I do that this film upset me. It amazes me how someone who can so brilliantly capture the essence of what makes the X-Men so wonderful...misses the mark so badly with the Man of Steel. Peace.

Hmmm - so it was okay that the actual SEX that created said child occured in Superman 2, oh, almost 30 years ago. But because the child exists in this film, that's what you have a problem with. Or is it the sex? I'm confused.

The original Batman used to shoot people. Then for awhile, he was an utter fool. And then they made him dark. I much prefer the dark version. Things need updating, and they need to remain relevant. I like the angle that Superman now has someone he's connected to. He's no longer alone, no longer an outsider entirely. Now, logistically I don't want to see him married and mowing the lawn. Having the child be his but someone else doing the heavy lifting of parenthood works for me.

I have a review going up of the movie in the next day or so.

 

[tomandshell]

From an article at IMDB.com:

L.A. Weekly columnist Nikki Finke...also reported that Warner Bros. is rushing to "retool" its marketing campaign in an effort to "stem the gay buzz surrounding" the movie.

"Gay buzz"? Am I missing something here? What gay content was there in this movie? If so, then my gaydar must be seriously malfunctioning. Why in the world would Warner retool their marketing campaign? This makes no sense...

 

[DarkArtist81]

Michael.... again we are on the same page and I agree with every last word above. I could not say it better....

 

[gdb]

But now, in an attempt to "modernize" our heroes we accept a Captain Ameirca that kills, and a Superman that sires children out of wedlock.

I thought Superman's mom, like, married them or something in Superman 2.
Besides, it's not that he knew he concieved a child. If Lois remembered that it was Clark's child (I'm a bit unsure of how that "forgetful kiss" worked at the end of Superman 2), she sure as hell didn't bother telling him. You know if a man kept a new born from its mother, they'd issue an Amber alert. But when a woman does it, somehow the man is a jerk?

But if you didn't like what they did to with the movie, you'll really hate who they let Clark sleep with in Smallville.

And I thought Captain America killed his share of NAZI's in WWII.

 

[carbo-fation]

From an article at IMDB.com:



"Gay buzz"? Am I missing something here? What gay content was there in this movie? If so, then my gaydar must be seriously malfunctioning. Why in the world would Warner retool their marketing campaign? This makes no sense...

Hmmm...I did like the way Routh looked in the costume. Does that make me gay??

 

[gdb]

From an article at IMDB.com:



"Gay buzz"? Am I missing something here? What gay content was there in this movie? If so, then my gaydar must be seriously malfunctioning. Why in the world would Warner retool their marketing campaign? This makes no sense...

The ending was more Will & Grace than it was Forrest Gump.

 

[tomandshell]

Thanks for the explanation, Pjam.

I guess I am not clued in to the Hollywood buzz machine. I thought somebody was saying that the Superman character himself was gay and that didn't make a lot of sense to me, since he is in love with Lois Lane. If the buzz is all about the cast/crew then I will leave it to the folks in Hollywoodland.


Hey, did you hear that Steven Spielberg is a heterosexual?!? Let's get some "hetero buzz" going to support Indy IV...

 

[pjam]

From an article at IMDB.com:



"Gay buzz"? Am I missing something here? What gay content was there in this movie? If so, then my gaydar must be seriously malfunctioning. Why in the world would Warner retool their marketing campaign? This makes no sense...

Tom, where have you been my good man, guess not in Hollywood, which might be a very good thing

the entertainment bloggers (defamer, etc.) have attacked this film, most likey to make their miserable lives feel better...

"Out", a gay magazine (I think it was Out, not sure, maybe the Advocate, anyhoo) had Routh on its cover a month ago with the title "Is Superman Gay?", even Jay Leno made gay jokes about this film in his monologue, even as Kate Bosworth was waiting in the wings as his first guest.

Last week Brian Singer, the openly gay director, had to make a statement saying Superman is the most heterosexual superhero he knows of...

There is nothing in this film to suggest any of this, it is just another forum, whether a Christian one claiming Superman is a christ-like represention -- (which is partially true in that his mythos can be drawn from judeo-christian beliefs according to many, including Singer) to many other groups using Superman to advance their own petty agendas, this always happens when something big makes it's way into american popculture...

So, the Director is gay, Spacey is gay and rumors have been flying that Routh is gay, even though he's had the same girlfriend for 2 and half years. well, maybe he is, who knows, but that's what has been going down and Warners is just protecting its property after seeing what happened to MI:3 in the States, it basically died at 115M.


this was deleted and reposted after your response tom. sorry, too many spelling errors

 

[tomandshell]

Warners is just protecting its property after seeing what happened to MI:3 in the States, it basically died at 115M.

What happened to MI:3? Did that have "gay buzz" as well? I missed that.

I suppose I am just oblivious when it comes to "gay buzz." I thought that was just a reference to Melissa Etheridge's new hair cut:

I don't see how the sexual orientation of the director or actors should impact your enjoyment of Superman Returns, so this whole buzz thing (and Warner Bro's response to it) just seems a little weird to me. I guess I could see this happening with a movie like "Brokeback Mountain," because it actually had homosexual themes and characters in the story. But it doesn't seem relevant with "Superman Returns."

 

[LOTRFan]

Thanks Tom, I will never look at hair clippers the same way!