DC Universe

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9067
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » November 7th, 2006, 9:39 pm

Why else do you think The Advocate had a cover story with Routh and the words: "How Gay is Superman?" :roll:

And it's not like Singer can't do cool heterosexual love scenes. Think about Wolverine and Jean in X1 and X2, or Bobby and Rogue. I loved the scenes between them in X2 when they finally kiss and the tension between Wolverine and Jean, ditto Scott's/Logan's grief when Jean dies.

Where did all that go?? :?


BTW I have no problem with anyone being gay; it's just that Superman is a classic character who shouldn't be altered just for one person's sake. If Singer wanted to make a "gay superhero" story with another character or make one up--that's his choice. But why mess with a classic that everyone knows?

Joel Schumacker went to that direction slightly and everyone had him on a pike (Just check out "Legends of the Dark Knigth" in B:TAS and see tha "Joel" character with the pink fur shawl who "loves" Batman and "all those muscles"--still can't believe they got away with that. :P )

No matter how many times he apologises--and he has--he's not going to live that one down, even with Begins' success. That's what you get when you mess with a classic.

Bryan was just smarter than Schumacker about it, so no one called him on it.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9067
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » November 8th, 2006, 2:12 am

This was a really cool video....(which I'm not sure is breaking copyright or not.:oops: ) But IMO it helps illustrate how lame Singer's version was compared to all the others....:wink:






(Funny how they show all the Lex Luthors except John Shea! ) :P
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25570
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » November 8th, 2006, 6:56 am

This is the "Year Of Superman" trailer that appeared on all the Warner Video releases earlier this year. Quite nice for a recap on ol' Supes career, but you notice that they don't actually edit in any of Singer's film into the clips. I really do think that WB knew they had a lacklustre film on their hands, hence the eventually "bodged" marketing and failure at the box office.

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 6670
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » November 8th, 2006, 3:13 pm

Well, I'll certainly be thinking about the things you guys said about the film whenever I watch it again (I hope to get the 2-Disc Deluxe Edition for Christmas).

But I still think I won't be converted. ;)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9067
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » November 9th, 2006, 1:11 am

Well, I'll certainly be thinking about the things you guys said about the film whenever I watch it again (I hope to get the 2-Disc Deluxe Edition for Christmas).

But I still think I won't be converted. Wink
No worries WJ....everyone's entitled to their opinion. Also, I just have to add that my opinion of the film is slightly more positive than Ben's, maybe 'cause I'm not nearly as hard-core a fan....I still did enjoy parts of the film (both times) mostly Routh's performance :P , and even though it was a bit bland in sections I LOVED Ottman's score and listen to it quite frequently.

But the utter lack of magic, optimism, and wonder, coupled with Singer's obvious (IMHO) disdain for the franchise he was lucky enough to be handed so early on in his career....I just can't ignore these things. I still think Singer had some interesting "ideas" in the film but all in all it's a mess....there's nothing to root for or hope for in this film. It's all over before it begins. :roll:

Plus, from reading part of the paperback tie-in book (which is actually considerably better than the film itself) there were more scenes with Clark and his mom that would have made the misogyny in this film even more ridiculously noticable. Apparently in Clark's five-year-absence Martha Kent (who, remember, is a widow) realised she wasn't getting any younger and, like Lois, got a boyfriend...much to Clark's dismay. (I suppose, like the dying Gertrude, she needed someone to "show her pleasures she never knew") As the film stands, Martha is such an incidental and peripheral chracter and is treated with such little respect by the script that I don't know which version is worse.

And notice how in Clark's flashback scenes when he's discovering his powers...notice how DEPRESSING those scenes are since he's always alone, with no parents to confide in or, unlike in that great scene in Donner's Supes, rivals to interact with. Clark's childhood/youth in Smallville was apparently as grim as his adulthood in Metropolis...at least as far as I can tell, since we barely see any of either. :roll:
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 3197
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Josh » November 10th, 2006, 6:15 am

Looks like Superman Returns Again has a new working title: Superman: The Man of Steel.

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 6670
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » November 10th, 2006, 9:58 am

Why does that sound like "The Dark Knight" somehow?
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » November 10th, 2006, 10:53 am

Dunno - I like both titles though.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9067
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » November 12th, 2006, 1:51 am

This is a great review of Donner's Supes by Roger Ebert and helps illustrate why Singer's version is so poor:

Superman


Roger Ebert / December 15, 1978

Cast & CreditsSuperman/Clark Kent: Christopher Reeve
Jor-El: Marlon Brando
Lex Luthor: Gene Hackman
Lois Lane: Margot Kidder
Otis: Ned Beatty
Perry White: Jackie Cooper
Jonathan Kent: Glenn Ford
First Elder: Trevor Howard
Miss Teschmacher: Valerie Perrine

Directed by Richard Donner and produced by Pierre Spengler. Screenplay by Mario Puzo, David Newman, Leslie Newman, and Robert Benton.


Printer-friendly »
E-mail this to a friend »


Superman is a pure delight, a wondrous combination of all the old-fashioned things we never really get tired of: adventure and romance, heroes and villains, earthshaking special effects, and -- you know what else? Wit. That surprised me more than anything: That this big-budget epic, which was half a decade making its way to the screen, would turn out to have an intelligent sense of humor about itself.

The wit, to be sure, is a little slow in revealing itself. The film's opening scenes combine great intergalactic special effects with ponderous acting and dialogue -- most of it from Marlon Brando, who, as Superman's father, sends the kid to Earth in a spaceship that barely survives the destruction of the planet Krypton. Brando was allegedly paid $3 million for his role, or, judging by his dialogue, $500,000 a cliche. After Superbaby survives his space flight and lands in a Midwestern wheat field, however, the movie gets down to earth, too. And it has the surprising ability to have fun with its special effects. That's surprising because special effects on this vast scale (falling airliners, derailing passenger trains, subterranean dungeons, cracks in the earth, volcanic eruptions, dams bursting) are so expensive and difficult that it takes a special kind of courage to kid them a little -- instead of regarding them with awe, as in the witless Earthquake.

The audience finds itself pleasantly surprised, and taken a little off guard; the movie's tremendously exciting in a comic book sort of way (kids will go ape for it), but at the same time it has a sly sophistication, a kidding insight into the material, that makes it, amazingly, a refreshingly offbeat comedy.

Most of the humor centers, of course, around one of the central icons of American popular culture, Superman (who, and I quote from our common memory of hundreds of comic books and radio and TV shows, in his dual identity as Clark Kent isa mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet). The producers held a worldwide talent search for an actor to play Superman, and although "talent searches" are usually 100 percent horsefeathers, this time, for once, they actually found the right guy.

He is Christopher Reeve. He looks like the Superman in the comic books (a fate I would not wish on anybody), but he's also an engaging actor, open and funny in his big love scene with Lois Lane, and then correctly awesome in his showdown with the archvillain Lex Luthor. Reeve sells the role; wrong casting here would have sunk everything.

And there would have been a lot to sink. Superman may have been expensive, all right, but the money's there on the screen. The screenplay was obviously written without the slightest concern for how much it might cost. After Clark Kent goes to work for the Daily Planet (and we meet old favorites Perry White, Lois Lane, and Jimmy Olsen), there's a nonstop series of disasters just for openers: Poor Lois finds herself dangling from one seatbelt after her helicopter crashes high atop the Daily Planet Building; Air Force One is struck by lightning and loses an engine; a thief climbs up a building using suction cups, and so on. Superman resolves his emergencies with, well, tact and good manners. He's modest about his abilities. Snaps a salute to the president. Says he's for "truth, justice, and the American Way." And, of course, falls in love with Lois Lane.

She's played by Margot Kidder, and their relationship is subtly, funnily wicked. She lives in a typical girl reporter's apartment (you know, a penthouse high atop a Metropolis skyscraper), and Superman zooms down to offer an exclusive interview and a free flight over Metropolis. Supposing you're a girl reporter, and Superman turns up. What would you ask him? So does she.

Meanwhile, the evil Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) is planning an apocalyptic scheme to destroy the entire West Coast, plus Hackensack, New Jersey. He knows Superman's weak point: the deadly substance Kryptonite. He also knows that Superman cannot see through lead (Lois Lane, alas, forgets). Luthor lives in a subterranean pad that's a comic inspiration: A half-flooded, subterranean train station. Superman drills through the earth for a visit.

But enough of the plot. The movie works so well because of its wit and its special effects. A word more about each. The movie begins with the tremendous advantage that almost everyone in the audience knows the Superman saga from youth. There aren't a lot of explanations needed; that's brilliantly demonstrated in the first scene where Superman tries to change in a phone booth. Christopher Reeve can be allowed to smile, to permit himself a double entendre, to kid himself.

And then the special effects. They're as good in their way as any you've seen, and they come thick and fast. When the screenplay calls for Luthor to create an earthquake and for Superman to try to stop it, the movie doesn't give us a falling bridge or two, it gives us the San Andreas Fault cracking open. No half measures for Superman. The movie is, in fact, a triumph of imagination over both the difficulties of technology and the inhibitions of money. Superman wasn't easy to bring to the screen, but the filmmakers kept at it until they had it right.

You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25570
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » November 12th, 2006, 8:45 am

Brilliant. He got it spot on.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9067
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » November 13th, 2006, 11:57 am

Just FYI, the sequel is slated for 2009....Singer might take a respite before then however. :? (from Variety)
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » November 13th, 2006, 2:39 pm

Respite - a short interval or rest or relief (pronounced res'spit)


(Sorry. Vocab test tommorow.)

So, if Singer takes a break, does that mean it would come out later?

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9067
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » November 13th, 2006, 10:56 pm

So, if Singer takes a break, does that mean it would come out later?
Nah, his break is only for a little while. He might also direct a "lesser" horror film in between Supes 1 and 2 called "Trick R Treat" (whatever that means)

He has three years to come up with a better Supmerman plot....the clock is ticking! :twisted:
(Sorry. Vocab test tommorow.)

Good luck! :wink:
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25570
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » November 14th, 2006, 5:14 am

Trick/Treat is the directing debut of one of his writers. He's producing but not directing this. He's in prep for Supes II (or IV, shudder)... ;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9067
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » November 14th, 2006, 10:00 am

Like any good filmmaker, Bryan has laid the groundwork and has confirmed there are many clues in “Returns” that hint to what direction the sequel will take. He has also said that the next film will be very, “Wrath of Khan.”
Wonder what this could mean? :)

Hopefully more action, more drama, more romance! :)
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

Post Reply