DC Universe

Post by **Dacey** » November 30th, 2006, 11:44 am

Sorry.

I've been excited about this 14-disc set ever since I learned about it a few days ago.

Guess I got carried away.

Post by **Ben** » November 30th, 2006, 2:29 pm

If only we could get it without the mistakes!!

Post by **Dacey** » November 30th, 2006, 3:38 pm

Aye.

Do all editions have the "Glitch"?

Post by **Ben** » December 1st, 2006, 12:25 am

At the moment, yes.

You can either buy now and phone for replacements, or...wait.

WB have said that "corrected DVDs and sets will eventually find their way into stores (as a 'running' production change) once the current stock sells out. They'll have new SKU numbers to distinguish them from the current ones", but we don't know what those are yet.

So...looks like a waiting game until we're able to get the new SKU-marked sets through stores...

Post by **Dacey** » December 2nd, 2006, 11:00 am

Jeez. I can't believe they let this happen, even if it was just an "Honest mistake".

Post by **Ben** » December 2nd, 2006, 11:03 am

Some stores have no taken the boxes off the shelves to save on complaints.

WB now says "two-to-three weeks" for the new SKU sets to arrive, and Amazon orders are indicating a "mid-December" shipping date.

A bummer, but at least this will hopefully be fixed by Christmas!

Post by **ShyViolet** » December 22nd, 2006, 5:41 am

Apparently more fans are expressing their dislike for this film: Interesting read.

Why I stopped watching after 26 minutes
by cnichols-5 (Sun Dec 10 2006 19:15:40 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the music starts up .. the classic Superman theme. This is going to be good!
Then the music credit rolls .. not John Williams. Some other guy. They flash John Williams on screen for a split second - barely long enough to recognise his name.

I notice a couple of credits later that the guy who did the music also did the editing for the film. Hmm. Was the movie made on a tight budget I wonder? Later I discover it cost a staggering $270 million.

Kevin Spacey does a sub-par Gene Hackman impression, takes his dodgy-CGI ship through a dodgy-CGI ocean to the dodgy-CGI fortress of solitude. I can't believe the CGI looks this bad! The quality would be excusable in a b-grade movie - but this is Bryan Singer doing Superman Returns. WTF!

Superman comes home in an asteroid spaceship but crash lands. Barely makes it out alive - thank God mom came to pick him up! This is so cheesy I am tempted to turn it off already.

He's been gone for 5 years, but he seems to be aged in his early twenties and looks younger than he did in the previous movies. His acting is less superman and more OC extra. It occurs to me that Claire's father (actor Jack Coleman) in Heroes is more superman than this guy!

I observe that the music doesn't seem to fit whats going on onscreen, and that it's rubbish.

We see a young superman bounding through a field. I'm not sure why. Lame lame lame.

Clark goes to get his job back after 5 years. Around this point it's occurring to me that every shot thus far has been poorly framed and has lacked the cinematic look that I would expect from a movie called Superman Returns.

I think for a minute as the film continues to roll. I never do this!

Stop.

--

If I have messed up the order of any of those events, I apologise. I've been trying to forget since last night when I watched it!

Also here's some more stuff by "LasVegasChick":

The film is a garden of plot holes, I'm concerned about the level of creativity of the writers, are they monkeys? do studios allowed the film directors to film doped?, lets analyze:

1. The Obvious One: Superman and Clark Kent both return from a five-year absence ... and nobody does the math. I have no problem "buying" that people don't recognize Clark as Superman or vice versa, but we're talking about a room full of very talented reporters -- one of whom won a Pulitzer prize before her 24th birthday.

2. Lex is out of jail ... how? He got out on parole? Because Superman wasn't around to ... testify? Parole on a double-life sentence? After escaping from prison in a hot air balloon? And committing high treason? And attempted genocide? Twice?

3. Superlazy: At the end of Superman 2, which we're told is part of the newly-refurbished Superman movie canon, our hero tells the President of the United States that he'll never bail on us in the future. ("Sorry I've been away for so long," (in this case only a few days), "I won't let it happen again." Yet less than half a movie later, he's taking a half-decade space-vacation.

4. The Kid: Since it's safe to assume that the kid isn't the illegitimate son of Bruce Banner, he's obviously Superkid. Right? So the kid tosses a piano at an evil henchman to save his mom from a rather savage beating -- but he can't even TRY to crack open the freezer door to save mom again? He can't even give it a shot? And we're talking about a kid who knows about life and death; basically a normal little kid. Yet his father, after being on Earth for only about 45 seconds, is able to effortlessly, cognitively, and with the clear intention of rescue, lift a pick-up truck before it smashes his brand-new adopted daddy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, although no one has really mentioned this, that whole thing with Clark breaking the picture of Lois and her son and boyfriend seemed very out of character for him.
It's understandable that he would be upset over it but after YEARS of learning to conceal his emotions while living as two separate people, I would he think that he has more self-control than that.

Post by **Ben** » December 22nd, 2006, 8:18 am

It was, frankly, pure crud. I'm glad people are being vocal about this and can not believe that Singer is making another one.

Post by **ShyViolet** » December 22nd, 2006, 8:46 am

Does anyone know the plot yet or who's going to star other than the 3 principles?

Oh, this cracked me up:

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 1st, 2007, 5:11 pm

Also here's another interesting anti-SR essay from IMDB:

(It's OK if you don't agree with it, I respect everyone's opinons on this film. I just thought it made some interesting points.)

Bryan Singer owes Superman an apology, 28 June 2006

Author: dpogue21

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

First, let me just comment on what I liked about the movie. The special effects were fantastic, and very rarely did I feel like I was watching a video game. There, that is the last nice thing I have to say about this film. In fact, I would just like everyone reading this to take note that I can't even put into words how hard it was for me to write this review without swearing.

I have innumerable complaints about the film, but four major complaints jump to mind. My first major complaint has to do with the incredible cheesiness of the "plot twist" (if you can call it that since most people probably saw it coming a mile away) where Lois's 5 year-old son turns out to be the super-powered child of Superman. When the crying super-child throws a piano at Lex's henchman to save his mother, I almost got up and left the theater. Singer could have made a much better Superman movie without resorting to cheap gimmicks like a seemingly fragile but latently super-powered illegitimate child. It's been 5 days since I saw the movie and I still want to vomit.

My next major complaint has to do with the fact that Superman lifts a continent made out of kryptonite up into outer space. It doesn't take comic book guy from the Simpsons to point out what's wrong with that. I don't know how many comic books Brian Singer has read, but when Superman is exposed to even a small amount of kryptonite he barely has the strength to stay on his feet. Whoever had the idea to have him fly a large island made out of his greatest weakness into space has no business being associated with any Superman-related projects ever again. The concept is as ridiculous as making a Dracula movie where the title character has a stake through his heart and still manages to fly a spaceship made out of garlic into the sun. Why not just have Superman eat kryptonite? He can eat it and then brush his teeth with it, and then go to sleep in kryptonite pajamas. That's not any more absurd then having him hoist a continent of kryptonite into space and then fall powerless through the atmosphere without burning up in re-entry or splattering all over central park when he hits the ground.

My third major complaint has to do with the fact that Singer slaps movie-goers across the face with religious symbolism the entire movie. I have to take issue with his characterization of Superman as the only son of a God-like Jor-el sent to Earth to be a savior. Jor-el wasn't all-wise, he was just a scientist. And he didn't send his son to earth to be a savior, he threw him in a rocket and hurriedly fired it into space because his planet was about to explode. I'll buy the Christ allegory if Brian Singer can show me the part in the Bible where God sends Christ to Earth because Heaven was about to explode, and then radioactive pieces of Heaven become Christ's primary weakness. Furthermore, the "crucifixion" scene where Luthor stabs Superman in the side with a kryptonite "spear" just makes me want to slam my face into a brick until I'm too brain-dead to notice the brazenly obvious and inappropriate symbolism that will be tainting the man of steel for the foreseeable future. They might as well rename this movie "Superman Returns: the Passion of the Christ."

And speaking of Luthor, my last major complaint has to do with Singer's depiction of Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor is a shrewd, cold-hearted business tycoon who is more apt to run for President (which he does in the comics) than try to destroy the world. The man wants money and power; he wants to be in charge, not wreck everything. Yet the Luthor we see Superman Returns, as well as all the previous Superman movies, is a wacky theatrical dunce who comes up with zany schemes to destroy the world. If Singer had the slightest loyalty to the characters instead of the (quite awful) previous Superman movies, this film might not be such an unbearable travesty. Maybe Singer's next project can be a Batman movie where he focuses on the interpretation of Batman from 1960s TV show. ZAM! WHAP! POW!!

To summarize, I don't know what I hate more, the movie itself or the fact that so many people seem to be giving it good reviews. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you don't hate this movie then your opinion is wrong. I sincerely encourage anyone who reads this not to see this movie if you haven't already. Don't see it, don't buy it when it comes out on DVD, don't rent it...basically don't contribute any money towards it in any way. This movie does not deserve to make any money. In fact, I think that for every person that sees this movie, Bryan Singer should be fined 45 billion dollars. If you're a Superman fan and you really want to see this movie, just bend over and have someone kick you in the b**** and you'll get the same experience without having to waste 2 hours of your time.

BTW, apparently EW named Superman Returns as one of the 10 biggest disappointments of 2006.

Post by **Daniel** » January 1st, 2007, 9:22 pm

ShyViolet wrote:Also here's another interesting anti-SR essay from IMDB:

That was entertaining

Well, since I'm not really a Superman fan, I wasn't really intending to rent it or what have of you. But, ouch, is the movie that bad?

ShyViolet wrote:BTW, apparently EW named Superman Returns as one of the 10 biggest disappointments of 2006.

That is indeed true.

I actually found it funny

Post by **Randall** » January 1st, 2007, 11:48 pm

It's not really a bad movie, unless you know anything at all about Superman--- then it's an awful travesty.

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 2nd, 2007, 2:20 pm

As a film, I did find parts of it enjoyable (even with the underlying cynacism) mostly because of the score(which is half-Williams anyway) and Routh. But the mostly bad casting, sloppy editing and themes/motifs that go nowhere...not good. I have a weakness for ALL superhero/comic book films, no matter how bad they are (I actually enjoyed Daredevil, even though I know it's lame) There were "interesting" ideas but Singer never gives his full effort into it and never once justifies the sweeping changes (as opposed to what critics called "slavish faitfulness"--ha!) with which he mutilates this classic character.

And as a Superman film--you're right, it is a travesty. The three worst things to me are the misogyny, the abandoned superkid and the unpleasant alien/outsider thing which is taken way too far--Superman may be an alien, but he considers Earth his home, and he loves the people he protects. This is what Singer completely misses, much to the detriment of his film.

I think what Superman fans find to be the most upsetting about this film is that Singer makes us feel like if Kal'el had his way he'd live his life over again and make it so that Krypton never explodes and that he never comes to Earth or meets Lois at all. That he'd much rather be living with his own people and it's his rotten luck to be stuck on Earth protecting a son who'll never know him, ice-cold b*****s like Lois Lane and the man who stole her away.

Doesn't exactly make you want to raise your fist and yell: "Yeah! Superman!" does it?

Oh BTW, as far as acting goes, Kevin Spacey is just awful.

His performance as Hopper in A Bug's Life is about a thousand times better. (Seriously. And I'm a huge Bug's Life fan.

)

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 2nd, 2007, 2:37 pm

He should take lessons from this guy!

Post by **Ben** » January 2nd, 2007, 3:17 pm

Nice.