DC Universe

[ShyViolet]

Ask yourself this, WJ:

This is (ostentibly) a Superman film, but doesn't it strike you as insulting that:

A.) There are never any love scenes between Lois and Supes (No, they don't kiss ONCE)

B) There is not one moment in this film where ANYONE is truly happy.


C.) Clark spends way more time with Jimmy Olsen than with Lois Lane??


D.) There's this creepy, exploitative, possibly almost pedo vibe when little Jason plays the piano alongside that Henchman with the skull tatoo?


E.) The only scene that has anything possibly worth watching is a lame retread of the flying "Can you read my mind?" love scene between Lois and Superman in Donner's Superman The Movie,


F.) Routh looks more beautiful than Bosworth in many shots,


G.) The most erotic scene that has anything suggesting sex in this very sexless movie (at least between Lois and Clark) is the long unpleasant sequence of Lex Luthor beating up Ka'lel and then, um, stabbing him with a crystal shard of kryptonite?



Sorry to say all this, and I have nothing against Singer whose other films I thoroughly enjoyed. But all of his so-called "respect" for the Superman franchise is just so utterly laughable--it would have been more respectful if he had just left Supes alone and directed a shot-by-shot remake of Superman the Movie and called it a day--but instead he trashes everything that made that movie what it was in the first place.

Let's just say this: Bruckheimer, Michael Bay, M. Night Shyamalan, Tim Burton, Jon Peters, McG, Brett Rattner--NONE of them could have hurt this character more than the way Singer did in Superman Returns.

[ShyViolet]

I also think it's funny that even the NEGATIVE reviews of this film thought that its main flaw was it that it was "too sincere" or "too serious" or "slavishly faithful to Donner's version" when it's anything but that.


The fact that Singer had to have known that a large part of the general audience (heck, even the critics) wouldn't understand the subtext of this film is the ultimate slap-in-the-face. (Again, no offense to anyone here who liked it.)

Even Schumacker's Batman films are more faithful to the Batman comic than this film is to Superman--at least Schumacker understood the elemental idea that Batman is a HERO and that he SHOULD be trying to save others. At least Schumacker stuck with the idea that the world needs a hero.


*********************************************************

One more thing: Boy, saying that this film was edited badly is like saying that the 60's Adam West Batman was "a little campy." There is a jaw-dropping number of plot holes and goof-ups in this movie, the most glaring (in my eyes) being the scene where Lois' plane is so high up that the passengers and their posessions float in air--when ANY elementary schooler can tell you that if they actually were that high up, there IS NO WAY they would be breathing!

And why does Superman, after catching part of the falling skyscraper later on, just shove it on to some poor guy's car, letting the car get totalled? Couldn't Superman just pick it up and throw into space somewhere, the way Reeve's Superman would have??

Yeah, and like Perry White--seasoned reporter/editor--apparently doesn't give a rat's a** about some "power blackout" and Lex Luthor getting out of jail; no, he'd much rather have Lois write another Superman story. Um, O.K.



************************************************

If fans hated Schumacker for screwing up Batman, then they should have Singer's head on a pike, since he so obviously has zero respect for them. But where are they? Where's the anger, the indignation? To think of all the ruckus fans raised when Keaton was picked to play Bruce Wayne, and then not to hear anything about SR because, I guess, "the X-Men guy" directed it? But does that mean he's above reproach?

[ShyViolet]

Hey, how did it slip past Singer to leave this classic part out of the film?

[ShyViolet]

Kind of a cool pic: (from the Absolutely James Bond community, off-topic chat)





Interesting to note how physically "slight" Routh looks compared to the others.


And what the heck is with that "dog" Superman? I've never even heard of some of these!

[Josh]

And what the heck is with that "dog" Superman?

He's from The Adventures of SuperPup (1958). It's no wonder you've never heard of him, because his show was cancelled before the pilot even aired.

A brief clip from that pilot can be seen in the recent documentary Look, Up In The Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman.

[Dacey]

"The Adventures of Super-Pup". God, that show looked awful.

[ShyViolet]

A brief clip from that pilot can be seen in the recent documentary Look, Up In The Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman.

Oh yeah...when that was shown on the history channel I think this was the part I came in on. WOW. Guess I should be glad THAT one was shelved.

It actually looks quite creepy to me--like that scene in the Shining when you see the ghosts and one of them says: "Great party, isn't it?" and there's this man-dog there too.... Ewww......

Plus, what Superman movie or TV show aired in 1988? Who's John Haymes Newton??

[ShyViolet]

Hey, anything's got to be better than what he came up with last time, right? Smile

I sure hope so....

(I probably should have gone to that other screening of A Scanner Darkly....oh well. )


BTW some people on another forum have said (and I kinda thought so too) that Parker Posey would have made a much better Lois than Bosworth.
I totally agree! She's definetely got that "spunk"! I'd have loved to see her as Lois Lane.

Also, maybe even whoever did Lois' voice in Superman: TAS. She would have been great too.


Plus, compared to the other Supeses, doesn't Routh look like he's about twelve years old??

[Dacey]

Ask yourself this, WJ:

This is (ostentibly) a Superman film, but doesn't it strike you as insulting that:

A.) There are never any love scenes between Lois and Supes (No, they don't kiss ONCE)

No. Besides, that flight they had together was pretty romantic, IMHO.

B) There is not one moment in this film where ANYONE is truly happy.

Jimmy's always happy, if memory serves.

C.) Clark spends way more time with Jimmy Olsen than with Lois Lane??

Does he? It seems to me that they weren't together all that much.

D.) There's this creepy, exploitative, possibly almost pedo vibe when little Jason plays the piano alongside that Henchman with the skull tatoo?

That was one of the best scenes in the movie.

E.) The only scene that has anything possibly worth watching is a lame retread of the flying "Can you read my mind?" love scene between Lois and Superman in Donner's Superman The Movie,

Again, that's one of my favorite parts.

F.) Routh looks more beautiful than Bosworth in many shots,

Says who?

G.) The most erotic scene that has anything suggesting sex in this very sexless movie (at least between Lois and Clark) is the long unpleasant sequence of Lex Luthor beating up Ka'lel and then, um, stabbing him with a crystal shard of kryptonite?

Um, what was THAT doing on a family board?

Like I said, I can't be converted.

[Daniel]

Also, maybe even whoever did Lois' voice in Superman: TAS. She would have been great too.

There's a possibility, don't know who provides the voice, let alone what she looks like. But she certanly has the voice.

In the long run, isn't that all that matters

Plus, compared to the other Supeses, doesn't Routh look like he's about twelve years old??

Supeses? What a word

Routh doesn't look twelve years old, twenty yes, twelve no.

But, he does look the youngest, no doubt about that

[ShyViolet]

No. Besides, that flight they had together was pretty romantic, IMHO.

What, that?? Are you kidding me? They barely look at each other or hold each other at all. They hardly even touch! Compare it to the scene that it's so obviously ripped off from, and there's a HUGE difference.

Jimmy's always happy, if memory serves. Wink

Yeah, but who even cares about Jimmy? Is he THAT indisposable to the plot? (Well, apparently in Singer's he is, but...) Is the point of the whole Superman myth/ledgend about "what happens to Jimmy Olsen"? Especially this so-annoying-he's-worse-than-Justin-Whalin-on L & C---and--that's--saying--a--lot Jimmy Olsen? Lois and Clark are the stars and they spend the whole film depressed. Is that what we paid 8 bucks for???

Does he? It seems to me that they weren't together all that much.

Um, they were. In the office and in the bar when they go drinking. Remember, Clark is separated from Lois, who is kidnapped, for a good chunk of the film!

That was one of the best scenes in the movie.

Sorry to say this but it was completely and utterly pointless, other than showing a terrified kid. Yeah he's in danger, so what? It's all creepy shots of the kid playing piano and the thug looking down on him in this leery way. Who needs to see THAT? Is it relavent to the "plot"? No!

Again, that's one of my favorite parts.

Um, why, when you can watch the exact same thing, and done much better, in Donner's Supes?

Says who?

Says Singer's camera lens. Basically he pins the entire film down with these lingering shots of Superman's features and his hunky body. I sure didn't mind this (being that I DO think Routh has a hunky body:)) but like I said earlier, there was no point! Certainly not during the kryptonite/scourging/flayling scene....or whatever that was. The Superman myth wasn't called "The Passion of Ka'el". The core of the story is a man and woman in love. That's what is at the heart of this. That's what Singer misses entirely. Besides the fact that Bosworth is so appalingly bad in her role (although I admit she could have been worse, not much worse, however) Singer has zero interest in Lois Lane as a character, not from a script POV or a visual POV. It's all about the dramatic suffering of Kal'el and the lousy earthlings he risks his life for over and over again. The Superman myth is a crock, Krypton is dead, Jor-El is dead, G-d is dead, and Superman dies and lives again--and no one really cares. That's Singer's message in a nutshell.

Um, what was THAT doing on a family board? Wink

Sorry about that. I didn't mean to get too explicit. I only mentioned it because that's what's at the film's core. Not the love between Lois and Clark which will overcome all odds. Just twisted obsession and hate that also suggests....other subtexts. And if this was what Singer wants to say in a movie, fine, let him do it. But this is Superman for crying out loud. That's not what Superman is. Worst of all, Bryan only did this because he didn't care one way or the other about this story and thought he would mess with it just for his own little power trip, just to say "screw you" to the audience, with 90% of them not even aware of it. He's had his joke, and it's on all of us.

[Dacey]

Anyway...I saw it over the weekend. I LOVED IT!

Trust me, Ben, you will NOT be disappointed.

But then that's my opinion...I guess everyone feels differently.

That's all I have to say.

[Meg]

Hee, I was thinking of that too.

I liked it. No, it wasn't the best comic book film ever. Yes, I wished it could have been better. But I was entertained...so whatever.

[ShyViolet]

Actually, I've thought of that too.

I freely admit there was stuff I liked in it and was entertained by--the music particularly (I still have the CD and listen to it.) I still think Routh was (mostly) excellent. In my opinion, some flying shots were great and action sequences were exciting.

But underneath it all there's nothing. It's all just a massive joke.

Think of the Dick Tracy film--that film worked not because of the script, which wasn't particularly great, but because the director (Warren Beatty) believed 100% in his heroe's world. His sincerity is what holds up that film.

With Singer's Superman, it's like an optical illusion. You look one way and it's one thing. You close your right eye and boom! it turns into something else. Trust me, Singer couldn't care less.

[Ben]

Basically, it's all to do with being gay...