Our Canadian friends over at DOSE.ca have a humorous look at some recent comments made by Singerman star Brandon Routh at the recent Singerman videogame/DVD (i.e. "Hope and Pray") launch party. It's good to know he's still around.
"With plans for a sequel to Superman Returns in the works, and with director Bryan Singer reportedly on board, Brandon Routh wants everyone to know he’s still around and will, like, totally play Superman again.
Routh told website E! Online, “They've publicized that Bryan had finalized his deal, which was the lynchpin in the whole talk about a sequel. So, everything looks to be heading that way.”
The actor, who made his much-publicized film debut in Superman Returns, also revealed some details of the sequel — tentatively titled The Man of Steel — including its possible villain
“There’s a lot of talk about Braniac; everyone wants to see [him]. But in the Superman Returns video game, you get to play as Bizzaro [the imperfect Superman clone], and Bizzaro’s pretty fun — you could have some fun with that [too],” says the actor. “So, I’m leaning towards one of those.'”
You tell em Brandon! Your ideas already sound more original than anything Singer's coughed up.
63 comments:
BR sounds like a cool guy hopefully he gets better material to work with in the sequel.
Does he not remember that there's a Superboy?
Trying to get more stuff from the comic on screen???
HOLY SHIT!!!!! IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!
Too fucking bad you got a lower budget you bunch of dumbasses.
And now the stupid superboy. Sorry routh, but it's TOO LITTLE TOO LATE.
And it's one thing to promise brainiac and bizzaro, it's an entirely different thing to ACTUALLY READ THE COMIC and do them justice.
Hey SSS, I think your cause is Noble, but it seems like it's futile to keep this blog going doesn't it...
This is WB, the studio that not only threw away 270 mil on Singer's rehash of STM, but also the brilliant minds behind Catwoman, Batman forever, Batman and Robin, Superman 2 and 3, and the next superhero to be raped will probably be wonderwoman.
Yeah batman begins was more like the comic but look what batman had to be put through before WB finally woke up and realized it'd be a good idea to read what they're basing their movie on.
The fact is that when all is said and done, Singer will have his way and those who still know and love superman will have a long time to wait until someone comes along to give him the treatment he deserves...
"The fact is that when all is said and done, Singer will have his way and those who still know and love superman will have a long time to wait until someone comes along to give him the treatment he deserves..."
I think when we hear who the villain is in the sequel, we will have a fair idea as to if the movie will be any good.
The thing is that we shouldn't even be at this point. Superman Returns had everything out on a silver platter for itself but was used instead to create some weird artsy nonsense with a plot from day time soap or some sitcom. Of course they'll try to pander to all the dissapointed fan's wishes and promise better things. It's business and they have to keep acting like they made a huge blockbuster that only slightly dissapointed. And therefore Singer's been saying basically he'll "go all wrath of khan" which means he'll make a movie that'll actually not put you to sleep, I gather anyway...
What he doesn't realize is that when those movies were made, it's usually because a new creative talent is brought in to direct and clean up or improve what was done before. Columbus made the first two potters and while they're ok, the best so far was the one he didn't direct and I'd say the second best would also be one he didn't direct.
that's what superman needs right now. It needs someone with not only a love for superman, not just donner's version but the modern interpertations as well, and can go place Singer doesn't even dream of. Singer's thinking about giving superman kids and luthor land schemes from decades ago when even back then people didn't like luthor selling land...
A new director will erase all singer's garbage and craft a superman for our time.
A new director will erase all singer's garbage and craft a superman for our time.
--------------------------------------
No it won't...Any new director will have to incorporate what Singer has done. He can't just drop whole plot elements from SR. The kid is here to stay the only question is how they deal with it in the sequel.
Yes it will. If singer can half ass a movie's continuity and cover it up with "vague history" bull crap then whoever comes next can do the same.
Only if you set it years into the future which I doubt they will do. For better or worse this storyline is going to be continued at least as a B story for the next film.
No, just completely forget the last one happened. the audience will.
You know all this Singer talk is making me particularly angry, especially even the Donner talk! DC must have absolutely no creative control over their projects where WB's marketing tie-ins are concerned. Read some of the recent Superman stories from DC to see what I mean.
There's the God-awful Superman Returns tie-in comic.
There's Up, up, and Away a storyline that is VERY similar to Superman Returns- including that damned idiotic looking raised S-shield, and that S-belt! Are you kidding us DC? At least the storytelling is consistent with the character: Superman never abandoned the human race, and once he starts feeling like things are tough he gets over it in a second and realizes he's flying so he's in no position to mope. It's actually what Superman Returns COULD have been if they read a comic book!
Then there's the worst of all: Geoff Jhons & Richard Donner's new run on Action Comics, a current storyline called, "Last Son of Krypton" in which Donner completely disregards the comics and services his OWN version of Superman: The Movie as gospel, while also servicing Singerman (which is a film that services his film!). Included in the pages are a familliar looking five year-old Super-tyke from Krypton with a blonde mop-top, an S-belt, and a Clark Kent that looks surprisingly Routhian and EMO in style. Johnns tries to reel the story back at points and connect it to current continuity, but to no avail. We also get a story that runs entirely counter to the behavior of Superman in ANY medium (except, koff, Singerman), and which is horribly written.
You know I'm a huge comic fan. Particualrly when it comes to Big Blue. But what DC Comics is doing is inexcusable. They are letting the character get raped. And for what? I went to Comic Con this last summer and everyone I heard talking about Superman Returns was dissapointed, and found the movie offensive. I personally spoke to Superman: Birthright (The film this movie SHOULD have been: a MODERNIZED SUPERMAN EPIC ORIGIN!) author Mark Waid, and asked him what he thought of Superman Returns. Do you know what he said? Without blinking he said, "I loved it, I saw it four times." Which knocked me over in shock, as this guy is known as Braniac to his peers, a dude with more Superman knowledge than anyone. But an interesting thing occured after he signed my copy of Birthright, he turned to another writer next to him and said in a BARELY hidden sentence (while I was still standing right there), "I can't believe they make us say that. It was just awful, they got everything WRONG!" In fact, every big time Superman author I talked to about Singerman echoed the exact same "I loved it, I've seen it (blank) times" response, either that, or they refused to comment at all and blew off my question about what they thought about it. Case in point- Grant Morrison.
Even John Byrne on his weblog railed on the movie for completely disregarding the comic's continuity for the last thirty years, and he was INSTRUMENTAL in the change to the modern Superman! I don't particualrly like his take on Superman, but everything he said about respecting the character, and the authors that live, breathe, and sleep these characters is dead on!
DC, don't let WB bully you. Pull your head out of your asses, and open up your letter column again. Seriously!
It's up to the fans to shake stuff up, or nothing will get done!
Since I don't read the comics I could care less how much it matches up to current comic continuity. Why not just think of it as an AU story?
Also while I respect what you wrote, anything you say is heresay. Saying you heard a writer say "I can't believe they make us say that" is heresay. I don't get why a DC writer would be forced to say they loved the movie. All they have to say is that they thought it was well done..blah..blah...blah. If what you are saying is true then DC and every DC writer has completely sold out, and you will never get the movie you want. And that should piss you off more than anything Singer has done to your beloved comic book continuity.
Following the old movie was completely unnecessary.
DC writers want to keep their jobs so you can't really blame them. They have spies praising the movie like it's the second coming on message boards all the time. It's a common practice nowadays to have someone from the studio be paid to hype a film online. I saw a newsreport on tv about it one day... something about deceptive movie hype tactics. Bad movies are getting fake good reviews etc.
It's even happening for X3. You'll just have to take my word for it.
The world doesn't need a Super Daddy.
You know i am curious are a lot of you guys that hated SR really big comic book fans of him? Personally i liked it but i am not an avid comic book fan of the character. I have a few friends who are and they hated SR as well as Superman 2 because they said both movies were too far off formula in terms of the comics.
I'm not that familiar with the comics. I just thought superman returns was clumbsy, boring, cliche-ridden, and overly-derivitive, overly violent, pretentiously filled with jesus christ imagery, and basically crap.
Singer is a FAG, and Superman Returns was gay.
I wrote the comic rant yesterday. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with the movie not matching up with continuity. Batman Begins didn't match up with current continuity necessarily (although it came pretty damn close), but Batman begins was still a great BATMAN movie. Why? Well... when you are making a comic book film it only makes sense to go to THE SOURCE MATERIAL for inspiration! Would you make a film version of War And Peace, or The Diary of Ann Frank, or Beowulf if you had never cracked the books- If your only experience in knowing who those characters were and the world they inhabit was the equivalent of someone reading a bookflap to you? The difference between the original films and Singerman is evident if you take a LOOK at the comics themselves- The Donner films still used the whacky Silver Age as inspiration, where anything and everything strange and unusual happened to the character. But there's a key difference still, and here it is: The Donner films had Reeve, who ACTUALLY smiled and was ACTUALLY heroic and proud to be Superman- he wasn't an actor who was intimidated by the role, and he didn't hate doing it like Steve Reeves! The Donner films were also filled with joy, spunk, energy, humor, and excitement (special effects still don't matter when watching those films because they had heart). But even the Donner films messed around with the comics of the times quite a lot, however, they didn't stray too far. Nowadays in comics we have a Superman who is much more complex, and yet is much more heroic, and not as two-dimensional. In Superman comics these days, Superman is the ultimate example of doing the right thing, of righting wrongs, of fighting FOR humanity, (in the modern comics Superman's greatest regret and the ONLY thing he ever beats himself up about is that he CAN'T save everyone no matter how powerful he is) and of sharing compassion and HOPE with the whole world.
Tell me, how does abandoning Earth for your own selfish purposes display Hope? Hope of what? That you'll come back? Superman isn't an idiot right? He knows that people he COULD have saved would die when he goes on this little fact finding expedition. But he goes anyway? Sorry, in the words of LEX SPACEOR, "WROOONG!" You're telling me that humanity's greatest defender, a man who repsepcts life so much that he can't even bring himself to eat meat doesn't care who dies on Earth for long stretches of time? And this is AFTER he told the President he'd never let the World down again. Hmmm, well YOU certainly have a grasp on the character. What about trying to woo an engaged woman who has a child? Is THAT heroic enough for you? Are you kidding me? Do you honestly think this is acceptable behavior?
If you read the comics AT ALL, you would also know that there is quite a bit of symbolism there. In fact, that S-symbol on his chest that they shrunk down for style sake (I'm sure Singer thought it would look "cooler"), is actually the Kryptonian symbol FOR HOPE! Think about it, Superman is wrapped in Hope as a symbol of the last of his homeworld protecting the innocents of his new homeworld. When Superman presses a child against his chest to save them from burning wreckage/building he is pressing them against HOPE! In fact if you read the comics you would realize that every single facet of the comics from little details of his costumes, and his colors, even the character of Clark Kent himself has deep MEANING that resonates far more than, "let's throw in a love story, a kid and some F/X."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for new approaches. But guess what? Superman wasn't broken, it's very arrogant of Singer and crew to think that they needed to fix him! And after never even having read a comic book? Are you friggin' kidding me?
Listen buddy, you may not be a "fan" of the comics, but that in itself doesn't make you an authority on the character. Don't come on here trying to school me about Superman cause it's not going to happen. I'm a huge fan of Big Blue, probably the biggest fan out there of WHO SUPERMAN IS, AND WHAT HE REPRESENTS. And that's WHY I hated the movie so much! It's horrible, and they shat all over the greatest character in comicdom THE HEAD-HONCHO ORIGINAL SUPERHERO no less, to give us this?
If you say you really liked this movie you are in two camps in my opinion: 1) You don't understand what the character is all about or what he represents, and you don't care to (all you care about is flying and heat vision as opposed to the good and DECENT man that is the character's REAL strength), or 2) you were so excited to see a Superman film of any kind that you let yourself get raped and you let the director shovel this crap down your throat and blast you in the eyes with it until you agreed with him that it was good (in which case, you let the director manipulate you.)
I am also an actor and I can tell you right now, the performances were stale, wooden and lifeless. A perfect example is the ending "NOD" (I'll say this to be nice- we all know it came from Superman 1). Watch the original how Reeve really smiles. Then think about the new one with Routh aping the same exact thing... that smile was not genuine, there was no heart, and it was completely devoid of any meaning. Get it? If you liked this movie they caught you with every nostalgic rehash they could and they reeled you in (even stealing key scenes, dialogue, and plot points- in fact, about half of the movie including the "climax" was STOLEN from Superman the Movie). And if it wasn't that... well, maybe you just like CG effects.
...
The Donner films had Reeve, who ACTUALLY smiled and was ACTUALLY heroic and proud to be Superman- he wasn't an actor who was intimidated by the role, and he didn't hate doing it like Steve Reeves!
Who the hell is Steve Reeves?
Wow thanks for showing me how much you know about the comics. Now the reason I liked the film is because 1-I could care less that he has a kid. Doesn't make him any less of a man then before. In fact maybe Superman showing the world how to raise a child would be a pretty damn good thing for him to do. 2- Don't read the comics. Could care less about matching any storyline in the comics. 3- Don't have a problem with him leaving, because I don't believe that Superman is owned by anyone and that he does have a right to find out if he is the last of his species. 4-Superman was never meant to save everyone on this Earth. We are still suppossed to look after ourselves, but when we can't, when something happens that a Superman is needed then he shows up. Since the world was at war when he got back, do you really think him being here would have prevented it(especially with George W. in office...)?
The beauty about Superman is that everyone takes something different from the character. Everyone inteprets Superman and what he does and what he must do as Superman differently. No one way IS the one way to view Superman. I agree though that Singer should have been a bit more respectful to the comic book community. But the fact that he wasn't had nothing to do with the films dissapointing box office. Lack of action and a dull story took care of that. Give people a good story full of action and it makes a killing.
"Don't get me wrong, I'm all for new approaches. But guess what? Superman wasn't broken, it's very arrogant of Singer and crew to think that they needed to fix him! And after never even having read a comic book? Are you friggin' kidding me? "
Well if it wasn't for Singer then you would have had a kung fu fighting Superman that cursed and fought giant spiders. SR was not perfect by any means but it's a lot better than the bullshit we almost got. Remember it wasn't until Singer gave the studio their pitch that they realized they were approaching the movie the wrong way. So we would have gotten a variation of JJ's script. And that is more of an afront to the character than anything Singer could come up with.
HAPPY TURKEY DAY IN HONNOR OF SR!
HAPPY TURKEY DAY IN HONNOR OF SUPERGIRL!
"Well if it wasn't for Singer then you would have had a kung fu fighting Superman that cursed and fought giant spiders. SR was not perfect by any means but it's a lot better than the bullshit we almost got. Remember it wasn't until Singer gave the studio their pitch that they realized they were approaching the movie the wrong way. So we would have gotten a variation of JJ's script. And that is more of an afront to the character than anything Singer could come up with."
That's a terrible excuse for what Singer gave us. Well at least it wasn't superman IV, so it's good. Why do apologist like to do this? No it's not.
We got a superkid. We got kryptonite that's not kryptonite. We got flying pianos. We got Emo superman. We got a dark, barely visible lighting for the whole movie. A DARK SUPERMAN MOVIE?
We got an overly indulgent director who didn't really do his proper research of the character and decided to compare him to jesus at EVERY single opportunity since donner made a slight referrence to the bible in his movie...
We got cut and paste dialogue from that same movie in fact since these writers have no ideas for dialogue of their own.
Well at least it wasn't supergirl!
That's not saying much, pal. I'd gladly give Supergirl more credit than Returns since it didn't copy another movie or have allude to any characters eating dogs.
btw it's spelled "Honor," not "Honnor." Go back to school, kids.
The question is, after all these years, WHY was it decided that we need to rehash STM? EVERYONE who slightly likes superman probably has seen it multiple times or has it on dvd. We don't need it to be rehashed. PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY MOVED ON TO A MORE COMIC ACCURATE VERSION.
Returns was made for and sold to just a cult of STM fanboys, and they ate it up.
All they wanted was to see superman flying around on screen again with john williams theme and they'd love it since that's all superman is to them. That's disgraceful that they'd accept what singer has done, but I can't blame them really. They got what they wanted. To hell with doing superman justice. Dean Cain was closer to superman than Routh, but they'll hump singer's leg because he gave them what they were thirsty for: John williams theme and superman flying around doing superhero stuff. That's all it is.
I can't fathom any other reason why someone who truly loves superman would be happy about him being treated this way.
"Who the hell is Steve Reeves?"
I'm sorry, I meant George Reeves. Steve Reeves was the bodybuilder that played Hercules in film and I've been reading a lot about him lately so the names got mixed up in my mind.
"Well if it wasn't for Singer then you would have had a kung fu fighting Superman that cursed and fought giant spiders. SR was not perfect by any means but it's a lot better than the bullshit we almost got. Remember it wasn't until Singer gave the studio their pitch that they realized they were approaching the movie the wrong way. So we would have gotten a variation of JJ's script. And that is more of an afront to the character than anything Singer could come up with."
Really now? You know the same producer that greenlit the exact Superman film you are talking about ALWAYS wanted Superman to be dark. He wanted Superman to have a dark leather costume, and fight a giant spider, and at one point get tortured. So waht did we get instead? A DARKER leatherized costume, a Superman who is selfish and morally ambiguous, Superman getting shived in the back and stomped by thugs until he cries out for help, a dog eating another dog, a joke about a person eating that canibal dog, and Superman lifting a giant rock. Yeah, you're right the two versions are so entirely different- I can't see what people would be upset about. You do know that the producer that was going to produce your spiderfest is the EXACT SAME PRODUCER of this film right? Yeah, it shows.
When you take a bunch of people that know nothing of Superman and throw them in a room, don't expect to come out with a movie that fans are going to enjoy. Just don't.
Batman Begins was good because they CATERED to their target audience- the COMIC BOOK fans! See, Comic books are pretty in-depth, and even a simple comic storyline has lots of hidden meaning and symbolism. That's what makes it resonate wwith a large audience of readers. If you can capture the imagination of readers, then you can probably at the VERY LEAST capture the imagination of the general public if you even come CLOSE to the source material. It doesn't have to be exact, but the heart has to be there, and most importantly AN UNDERSTANDING of the characters. I have no doubt that Singer was passionate about this porject- BUT, there's a huge difference between passion and understanding!
It’s a bird, it’s a plane, no it’s a turkey!
Superman Returns 2006
"I can't see what people would be upset about. You do know that the producer that was going to produce your spiderfest is the EXACT SAME PRODUCER of this film right? Yeah, it shows."
You are referring Jon Peters and he was a producer in name only on SR because he still had rights to the project from years earlier. I have read several times he had next to nothing to do with the movie itself.
You're bald.
"Batman Begins was good because they CATERED to their target audience- the COMIC BOOK fans! "
As good as it was it still was outgrossed by Superman Returns. So what does that tell us? Nothing..Yes, having a movie that caters to the comic book crown would have given it a better internet following and there wouldn't be a singersupermansucks blog. But the general movie going public wants to see action. Lots of action and cool special effects. Hence POTC 2 making over 1 billion dollars. The only people that even notice what is close to the comic books are the small section of fans that read them on a regular basis. And they are a small base no matter what anyone thinks...
You could have had the exact same movie except for the island plot and had Superman fighting some superpowered evil guy and it would have made more money...WB's knows this, which is why they are telling us the next one will be action packed.
More action??? Is that all you thought superman returns was lacking???
How about originality? How about a smart villain? How about FUN?
And please get your head out of your ass. Following the goddam source material is the entire point of an adaptation to begin with. Yeesh. It's like people actually want movies like catwoman.
If you work for Singer, please tell him "fuck you."
"More action??? Is that all you thought superman returns was lacking???
How about originality? How about a smart villain? How about FUN? "
Well no actually..But as far as the general public goes, give them a movie where Superman kicks ass and takes names and they will eat it up. That's just a fact. Whether or not it's exactly like the comics or if it strays to far from comic continuity means absolutely dick to joe schmo.
Plus look at POTC 2..It was unoriginal and it didn't exactly have a smart villain( a cool villain yes, but not a smart one). But it was fun and action packed. Look at what the general public was saying when they didn't like SR. "It was boring, not enough action, it was just OK." Not that many said "It strays to far from the comics or the kid is an abomination to all that is holy." Unless they are comic book fans. And Hollywood doesn't make movie's for the comic book community. They make a movie that will make them money. Period. So until Hollywood changes how they do business you are just going to have to accept that the only way you may get a perfect comic book movie is to finance one yourself.
I'm not debating or arguing that you aren't correct in that they should have followed a comic storyline. What I'm saying is that the only people that even care enough to say that are the comic book fans. Who, let's be honest here, live to bitch and whine about any comic book movie.
And that's what I'm saying, whoever you are. There's absolutely no goddam reason not to be faithful to the comics since PEOPLE GENERALLY DON'T CARE EITHER WAY. So why stray so far? Why continue an old forgotten storyline? It makes no sense.
"So why stray so far? Why continue an old forgotten storyline? It makes no sense.
"
Easy..Because while people don't really read the comics or care enough that the movie strays from the comics, they have most likely seen Superman The Movie. So if you want people to connect to the character you choose the most widely accepted interpretation of the character. And CR's Superman is THE definitive Superman to A LOT of people.
30 years ago.
His superman fizzled out and died 19 years ago, may he rest in peace.
your argument has one fat dick hole in it and it's Burton's batman.
Do what Kitty Teschmacher said and just get out. you won't convince anyone to eat singer's shit.
"30 years ago.
His superman fizzled out and died 19 years ago, may he rest in peace.
your argument has one fat dick hole in it and it's Burton's batman.
Do what Kitty Teschmacher said and just get out. you won't convince anyone to eat singer's shit. "
HUH....I wasn't trying to convince you to like SR..I was just trying to explain why the studios make the movies they do..And I'm sorry but Burtons Batman has nothing to do with this argument. They were doing a reboot, getting it away from that franchise. SR was not a reboot, it was meant to continue the storyline.
You didn't like it, and that's fine..I'm not trying to persuade you to like it. All I'm trying to do is to tell you that when all is said and done in HOLLYWOOD the dollar is king...Not the comic books.
You didn't like it, and that's fine..I'm not trying to persuade you to like it. All I'm trying to do is to tell you that when all is said and done in HOLLYWOOD the dollar is king...Not the comic books.
That is 100% correct, comic fan boys represent a very small faction of the movie going public with flicks like this. I really find it funny that i hear so many complaints about this movie being too far from the comics and being too much of a chick flick. Hello Superman 2 was way off base with the comics and a far bigger chick flick than SR. In the comics Superman never gave up his powers and lets face it his very identity just to be with Lois. That movie strayed way off formula and it made a shitload of money for the time and was well accepted by most fans. you are right when you say that comic fans will always bitch about any movie that comes out. The reality is SR made 200 mil at the BO and was very well reviewed. This is not Batman and Robin here folks that was a worthless piece of shit that everyone hated.
And no one gives a fuck what dumbass hollywood thinks. They're not the greatest experts on creating comic book films since most of them SUCK.
Well at least it's not Batman and Robin... You bring that lame excuse back? Nope, not batman and Robin, but a bad romance/passion of the christ movie for sure.
I'd say it's more of a parody of superman than an actual movie. I doubt anyone who gushes over it really knows their superman. I can see enjoying some of the special fx, but other than that this has to be one of the most hacked together and badly made films this year. Some good bits does not excuse the nonsesne we were paying to watch. I demand better for my money.
If you enjoy being ripped off, then by all means enjoy the sequel: The Quest for Originality.
I think the main point of bringing up the comics, is that a LOT about Superman has changed since 1977, most of which has been for the better. Superman is a more human character with a lot more depth since that time.
There's a ton of things they could've done from the last 30 years even if they loosely based it off of them, that would've been great.
You're right about Donner's film being the most well known version of the character, however therein lies the problem. While that storyline is the most widely known, it's also tied to a legend in Christopher Reeve, who the public still to this day sees as Superman. When you tie in the film so closely to that you condemn it to be looked at as a remake, and Routh is condemned to playing Reeve playing Superman. Why not let that film/actor stand apart, and go your own way and give the new film/actor a chance to breath on their own, instead of trying to ride the coattails of your predecessors?
Let Brandon be his own Superman and Clark Kent. Let Luthor be an unscrupulous business tycoon who's insanely jealous of Superman, not some small time hoaxster who's bilking old widows out of their fortunes and trying to create real estate AGAIN.
And no one gives a fuck what dumbass hollywood thinks. They're not the greatest experts on creating comic book films since most of them SUCK.
-------------------------------
Unfortunately you should care what Hollywood thinks otherwise it's just going to be Fanfilms online that will center around superhero's. But you are right..Most of the comic book films suck. However, that was my point..Until Hollywood changes how they do business then we are never going to get exactly what we want.
SSS, even if you reboot and break it away from CR's Superman it would have still been compared and contrasted to the first movie. CR's Superman is just to big. Nobody could make a movie that wouldn't be compared. The only way to even remotely go that way, would be to completely alter the character so he isn't recognizable as Superman. Because Superman is CR's Superman to way to many people.
"Well at least it's not Batman and Robin... You bring that lame excuse back? Nope, not batman and Robin, but a bad romance/passion of the christ movie for sure."
Passion of the Christ. yeah i am sure if i showed SR and Passion to someone who has never seen either one, they would tell me they are very similiar, give me a fucking break.
Stop sounding like an idiot and maybe you'll get one.
Exactly, SSS. cool I didn't know you read the comments...
The way I see it, is that old excuse about Donner's superman being well known and therefore is the only one to continue doing, just doesn't hold water.
Reeve played his own superman. Keaton played his own batman.
Bale played his own batman.
What we have in returns is the equivalent of what Clooney was in Batman and Robin. In some ways it's definitely not the same batman as before, but in a lot of ways it is still a sequel to burton's first batman.
There was absolutely no need to do that to superman at this point, especially after batman restarted fresh. A new superman would have been welcome too.
Ask any fan before returns came out if they'd have wanted to see lex not only sporting wigs again, but trying to sell land, krypto land or not, just selling land. And you'd get a resounding
HELL NO.
Now they're so desperate for more john williams theme and superheroics on screen, they'll bow before singer and ask for more, but they all know this wasn't the best way to approach superman. every fan knows it deep down, I'm sure of that.
And absolutely right, the biggest crime of this whole sham was forcing Spacey to waste his talents on a weak retread of hackman's silly luthor from the first movie. That is unforgivable.
If that's the definitive Luthor to you, then you seriously need help.
^ who are you talking to?
Okay, I'm back again- the Comic thread dude. Wow, lots of comments recently. Pretty cool.
I think there are a lot of comic book films that are close to the source material, unfortunately most of them aren't done very well. But all of them can take a lesson from Batman Begins, which was a GREAT comic book film. And if you ask the general theater-goer they will tell you that they were surprised by how good it was, many even say it was one of the best films of the year. Why is this? Well, like any great myth it was rooted in the tradition of the characters, and took their world seriously, as well as the events that create the characters and plunge them into high drama- that is the whole point of melodrama (or any hero cycle). Being that Batman Begins stuck to the comics, and even had a BATMAN WRITER pen the script, the story came out intact- being that all of the little meanings and symbolism, and metaphors were still contained within the film (and these little details are those that make the film resonate strongly with an audience it taps into our inner wants, needs, and feelings of power); NOT JUST having the characters show up in name-only and wear similar (albeit strange and stylized) costumes, and procede to run exposition about themselves as word vomit. A case in point: in this film Lois runs down every detail about Kryptonite to James Marsden in a scholarly scene with dialogue ripped from wikipedia, (why someone would talk like this, I don't know) but there's only one problem with the whole scene... according to the PREVIOUS films- Superman 1 & 2- Lois has never even SEEN Kryptonite, she has NO IDEA what it is; in fact, her dialogue is almost WORD-FOR-WORD Gene Hackman's Kryptonite speech from Superman the Movie!
Let's also look at the finale: Clark flies in to try and save Lois from sinking (he lifts her boat instead of her car and she lays there passed out), then he confronts Luthor and gives him the same "sick twisted mind" speech, then Superman is weakened by Kryptonite and Luthor explains the Kryptonite, Superman falls and can't get up, Lex threatens him, and shoves Kryptonite into him (as opposed to draping it on him), and then throws him into the water to drown. Once again a girl who's heart has warmed to Superman jumps into the water and pulls Superman out, and then gets rid of the Kryponite, meanwhile Luthor's assistant throws away the Kryptonian Krystals that Luthor worked so hard to get. Now what does Superman do? Well, he heat visions the surface and flies under the Earth's crust to lift a continent (as opposed to lifting the continent up by the techtonic plates in Superman the Movie to save the West Coast) to SAVE the EAST coast!
This film didn't try and CONNECT to the characters AT ALL! The REASON why many details were WRONG in this film, and have absolutely NO meaning, or throwaway meaning at best, is that Singer and Co. catered the entire film to copying things that Richard Donner already did, and better. There was no enthusiasm in this film, and it was WAY too DARK! Superman was a JERK! See, what MAKES SUPERMAN WORK is THIS: It doesn't matter how dark the world is around him- HE NEVER GETS THAT DARK. He is always a shining symbol of good, and decency, and HOPE. All of the symbolism is lost, when you are just showing some events that happened in another film (in a different way) and COMPLETELY ignoring what makes the characters GOOD and EFFECTIVE, and ELLICIT AN AUDIENCE RESPONSE in the first place. Any writer knows that if you don't write multi-dimensional characters, who we can GIVE A DAMN ABOUT, then your movie is crap, adn you are LUCKY if you make money. Did this film have good word of mouth? No. So why did it make even that amount of money? Well, they left it in theaters UNTIL it broke 200 million, think about it, it's been in theaters for how many months, seven, eight, more? It fell off the charts after ONE month. In fact it took the film almost FOUR months just to equal the take of the opening weekend. This film also opened up in about twenty MORE countries than Batman Begins worldwide, and that was a big chunk of profits. In American theaters I'm pretty sure that Batman Begins made more money, and I KNOW that it's Box Office numbers and theaters that the film was in were still much higher than SR's. Batman is a film that will endure. SR will fade into the limelight. One's a well made film, the other isn't. And one appeals to comic book fans, and the other doesn't. This isn't a coincidence. Also, if you are talking about numbers of viewers I might remind you that children and their parents are more inclined to see Superman, as he's (supposedly) a brighter character. Ha, but the six year old I sat next to looked as bored and tired as his parents when the movie got out; and in my humble opinion I found SR MUCH darker than Batman Begins, even though Begins was realistically dark. Singerman was forcing the dark environment and it just didn't fit.
I think that every single insecurity that Brian Singer had he projected onto the screen. Failed relationships? Done. Bitter battle with and ex (who longingly still wants you- how arrogant)? Done. Orphan syndrome? Done. Alien/Gay Syndrome? Done. No one understands me, boo hoo, who cares I don't have to be responsible (or own up to the pain I cause others) people will love me anyway. Done, Done, and Done.
Sorry, but this film is a little too EMO for Superman. I can see this film appealing to teenagers who just got dumped, girls under thirteen, four year old boys and under who have never read or seen any Superman comics (and just like to see flying and heavy lifting), and lonely crybaby wusses. Oh... and cutters.
Superman isn't just virtuous, and honest and good, he's also responsible, and fights for the protection of everyone, especailly the little guy and the downtrodden. He's a social crusader, a vigilante, a champion, and a hero through and through. He's the guy who bears the weight of the world on his shoulders with a SMILE, and he DOESN'T COMPLAIN about what he does. BTW, this isn't my interpretation of the character, it's who the character fundamentally IS (and it's ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME).
To say that Superman would abandon the people of Earth (knowing he could prevent the deaths of many that WOULD die in his absence), is ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as Superman standing on Kryptonite, having Kryptonite IN him, having it grow into his chest, and then LIFTING a CONTINENT of it. Just as ludicrous as Superman trying to woo a former lover when she has a fiancee and a child. Just as ludicrous as him NOT telling ANYONE that he would be GONE for five years, adn then expecting them to welcome him back with open arms which they ludicrously DID). Just as ludicrous as Superman being REWARDED in the end for BEING IRRESPONSIBLE and abbandoning EARTH, and NOT OWNING UP TO IT. Where is the moral, or the lesson here? He was never punished for his bad behavior. Even Lois came around and rooted him on (BTW, Lois wouldn't pine for him when he was gone, she'd wash her hands of him- they had a pseudo-flirty-relationship before he wiped her memory- that's all). So where's the moral? If anything Superman is a symbol of morality and goodness and compassion. This film made him into a selfish, self serving, jerk, who didn't care about people. He only cared about getting back together with Lois- even at the expense of her family on that rooftop.
Did you know they cut out a scene of Superman in that bar DEBATING whether he should save the plane or not? That among all of the other things I've listed shows that they had absolutely NO idea who the character WAS. The character is more important thatn the events surrounding him. But his ACTIONS speak volumes. What a LAME MOVIE!
"The thing is that we shouldn't even be at this point. Superman Returns had everything out on a silver platter for itself but was used instead to create some weird artsy nonsense with a plot from day time soap or some sitcom. Of course they'll try to pander to all the dissapointed fan's wishes and promise better things. It's business and they have to keep acting like they made a huge blockbuster that only slightly dissapointed. And therefore Singer's been saying basically he'll "go all wrath of khan" which means he'll make a movie that'll actually not put you to sleep, I gather anyway...
What he doesn't realize is that when those movies were made, it's usually because a new creative talent is brought in to direct and clean up or improve what was done before. Columbus made the first two potters and while they're ok, the best so far was the one he didn't direct and I'd say the second best would also be one he didn't direct.
that's what superman needs right now. It needs someone with not only a love for superman, not just donner's version but the modern interpertations as well, and can go place Singer doesn't even dream of. Singer's thinking about giving superman kids and luthor land schemes from decades ago when even back then people didn't like luthor selling land...
A new director will erase all singer's garbage and craft a superman for our time."
I couldn't have said it better. I pity those who were manipulated by Singer's shallow jesus christ imagery into think his film was anything good for superman. And I weep for the lost potential now that WB seems to be wanting to repeat their mistakes.
We wait for your true return, Superman.
wow, EXCELLENT posts.. *claps*
Thanks, SSS.
Comic guy here again. Thanks for having a site like this SSS, it's very therapeutic, and I was getting bogged down posting on IMDB months ago.
Here's something else to consider:
Bryan Singer's "vision" of the character was just that- HIS VISION. Bryan Singer did NOT invent the chracter or contribute anything towards the dynamic growth of the character- in fact, he neutered the character by taking Lois away, making him feel even MORE isolated (which doesn't make sense as Superman sees HUMANITY as his family- ie. THE KENTS, Lois, Jimmy, Perry, the WORLD, etc. He never even MET a Kryptonian before!) and giving him a kid that he CAN'T raise as his own. Now what is the audeince supposed to root for? That James Marsden's character will die, so Superman can swoop in and be a super-father? You know your film is going in the wrong direction when you are leading the audience to the obvious conclusion that we should dump the only DECENT character in the movie, or break his heart, or ruin his relationship just so the "hero" can have a crack at the Heroine. Although, it wouldn't be something unusual for Singer... or Marsden in his films. Haha.
Singer didn't just ape Richard Donner... every "original" concept in this film Singer ripped from his OTHER films! The "hero" watching a surrogate child sleep? (X-Men) A finale involving water (ANOTHER WATER BATTLE)? (X-Men, X-2, The Usual Suspects, and just about any other Singer flick- does Singer think that the ultimate tense situation is being in or around water, I think he shouldn't base his whole life experience off of his fear of JAWS) James Marsden playing second fiddle as the GOOD GUY to an outsider that's a more popular "hero," and who is trying to steal his girl away- even by cornering her away from him, talking to her, and trying to kiss her before she backs away? (X-Men, X-2) How about LEATHER and VERY DARK costumes and someone making a joke about classic and iconic comic-book style costumes? (X-Men) How about the hero talking to the lead female before he takes off to find himself again after having gained her trust and saved her life from a supervillain at the very end of the movie? (X-Men) How about that same heroine talking to the unconcious hero when he is in a hospital bed? (X-Men and X-2) To tie into the water battle finales- how about planes on water or narrowly escaping tidal waves and elemental forces? (X-Men, X-2) How about lifting ships out of said water using superpowers? (X-2) How about annoying little kids with superpowers who are practically deaf mutes but have a gimmick? (X-2) How about the hero getting stabbed in the back? (X-2) How about villains and underlings being crushed by elemental forces from their own "evil structures"? (X-2) A scale model of the city? (X-Men, X-2) How about death and particularly isolation as a central revolving plot point? (X-Men, X-2, Usual Suspects, Apt Pupil (though I've never seen Apt Pupil I'm sure there's many things there he used for SR as well)... and probably anything else this guy may have directed.) How about Bald guy who prove how smart they are by listening to Classical music in their studies? (X-Men) Haha, I know this last one is nit-picky but it's still a funny coincidence.
It's not so interesting when you look at his other films and can literally place scenes from them into this one. Then you watch the first two movies and realize that the entire plot is a patchwork of those same events with dialogue (even) shamelessly ripped off for the sake of the film. There isn't an original thing in this movie, even from Singer- unless you count the Super-kid... which haha, to me, really doesn't count (it's a pretty obvious way to say, hey look audience he's still the hero of the movie he has a son, and everyone knows that fathers are the real heroes... Sorry, Singer not ALL of them. But way to manipulate your audience into siding with you.) I swear, Singer is so insecure that he couldn't take ANY risks ON HIS OWN: everything in this film is a manipulation of the audience in order to side with him and pat him on the back (including the crowd cheering in unison at the baseball field- you're telling me no one would be shocked or freaked out or hurt that Superman was fially back- NO MIXED reaction to Singerman being GONE for FIVE YEARS? What about some other person whose parents died in a plane crash- if you were that person wouldn't you even entertain the idea that Superman COULD have done something to save them if he was there, but he WASN'T. The crowd only existed in this film to root Superman on, but in no way were they protrayed as being important TO HIM! (He even awkwardly scuttled away after they cheered him on in the AC#1 rip-off (the ONLY comic reference in this film)) I think that they would cheer initially and then stare at him not knowing how to react, maybe the crowd would even turn against him and by the end of the film he would have to WIN BACK the right to be a hero in their eyes and get the people back behind him again by earning back his place as a hero and protector; But you're right, who wants to see that when we can watch Superman pine for Lois for almost three hours and lift a rock without ANY conflict from the citizens of the world), right down to the most horrid of all: Dedicating the film to Christopher and Dana Reeve! Are you kidding me Singer? You attempt to concrete your name next to Reeve's by name dropping a popular icon and using the untimely death of him AND his wife for the CLAP factor you would get from the audience? So you dedicate this film to Christopher Reeve, but get an actor for your film to effectively REPLACE HIM, a lookalike no doubt. AND you throw in another icon who just died: Marlon Brando (in CG no less)... what are you trying to say? Cause I can tell you what it looks like you are saying. It looks like you are saying that these actors are and were completely UNNEEDED! "We don't need them to continue the SAME STORY that THEY MADE FAMOUS in the first place." I'm sorry, but that is plain old disrespectful. I also heard you wanted to get a walk-on part for Christopher Reeve, where you were going to CGI him WALKING around! Are you friggin' kidding me, Singer? You would downgrade all of the hard work and the best accomplishments of that man's life (his MOST HEROIC ACTS) for the sake of pretty images? Oh wait, that question was pretty stupid, it's OBVIOUS that's the way you think by looking twice at this flick... so who wants to see SR again?
Comic Guy, please stick around. You present some very well thought out comparisons and analysis, which is a pleasure to read. We're all for uncensored opinions here, but blogs that allow anonymous messaging like this one often attract the "your momma wears army boots" style of debate, unfortunately, which gets old after a while.
We cannot presume to know what was going through Singer's mind when he shot Ode to Donner, but it obviously wasn't anything original. Singerman is a perfect example of where re-imaging an old film for a modern audience doesn't work if you lose track of what made the characters and the film special to people the first time.
For example, where's the great one-liners that people quote to their friends and family? "I'm always around" doesn't have the same ring as "I'll be baaaack." Ironic since the latter is more appropriate for Singerman than the former.
How about humor? Where's the wit in "Weren't there two of those?" when there could have been a line like "I never drink when I fly?"
Singer was so hung up with profound Christ parallels in the dialog, "You say the world doesn't need a savior, but every day I hear people crying for one," and making people pity poor Superman for being different, "Even though you've been raised as a human being you are not one of them," he lost sight of showing audiences how special Superman really is. For fuck's sake, villains have had more awe-inspiring lines than Singerman... "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die." Total nonsense, but damn is sounds great, doesn't it? Then again, Singer aint no Philip K. Dick or Ridley Scott either.
Yes, great Blade Runner quote.
The only reason I'm anonymous is that I don't want to start an account (I'm having computer worm problems) but maybe I will.
"You say the world doesn't need a savior, but every day I hear people crying for one,"
Haha, you just reminded me of something ck-is-superman. This quote above- it's completely meaningless. In the film Superman is just saying it to try and win Lois over, and make her "like" him again. Think about it, if you heard "people crying for a savior" EVERY DAY, and you WILLINGLY abandon them for your own purposes... what kind of hero does that make you anyway? An anti-hero? No, not EVEN a hero. Not even a DECENT HUMAN BEING. Let alone Superman!
Another thing, to abandon the people of Earth for five years and excpect everyone to accept you when you come back is akin to leaving home for a year without telling anyone, and then expect everyone to be totally cool with it when you came back home. Superman's supposed to be the bringer of HOPE, not the rockstar on tour who can spread his seed where he likes with no care towards the feelings of others. Superman doesn't have the luxury of coming and going as he pleases, it's irresponsible. Are we to believe that the ONLY bad things that have happened the last five years were the things that happen when he gets back? What about all of the other planes crashing, all of the other orphaned children, what about all of the natural disasters, construction accidents, terrorist attacks, super-villain assaults, and random acts of violence that Superman COULD have prevented if he WERE there. See, if he was on Earth and those things still happened, then people would think, "Gee it was just their time," or "How horrible, but it couldn't have been avoided." Whereas with him gone EVERY thought could be, "Superman could have stopped this!" I think the world would be very bitter to have Superman back after such a long absense, as according to this film (and as is the trend with EVERY COMIC MOVIE TO DATE) Superman is the ONLY hero on the planet. Someone should do something to change this in film, and it wouldn't make for these wild discrepencies in the value of human life.
Comic Guy, aka cgeer15
All I know right now is that when I saw routh do reeve's trademark flyby the camera, I wanted to vomit. He did not earn that moment the way reeve did. Not by a long shot.
WB you are making a huge mistake, keeping this unoriginal hack on. Please let this sequel talk just be a stunt to get people to buy the dvd. Please let the dvd bomb as it should and have singer get fired. Please!
What you should hope for is for the DVD to make money and for Singer to demand to much money for the budget and then Singer get fired. If the movie makes no money on DVD then it will be a long time before another film is made.
Cgeer15 here again. I just saw a very humorous commercial for the Singerman DVD. It was an amalgam of clips where Brandon Routh was "acting"... he had the same expression in each, even though these moments were supposed to be "touching." And then the commercial ended with "Buy Superman Returns on PSP, and DVD."
Hahaha, the add fit perfectly with the impersonal style of the film, and the LACK of warm moments.
Priceless WB and Singer Co. Priceless!
What you should hope for is for the DVD to make money and for Singer to demand to much money for the budget and then Singer get fired. If the movie makes no money on DVD then it will be a long time before another film is made."
You talk of it too highly by calling any potential Singerman 2 a "film"
I have absolutely no interest in seeing Superboy being fitted for his tights, so if there's no singer directed superman rehash 2, then HALEYLUYA!!!! AMEN!!
I'm not one of those fanboys who's so desperate to see ANYTHING superman that they'll even take one covered in shitty suit... with a bastard son who throws pianos... and a fucked up relationship with lois on top of it.
Reading your comment again makes me think back to how it was when the crappy richard pryor superman movie came out. People must have been saying the same thing... "settle for this or wait a long time for more superman."
Well...
I'll wait a long time then.
Oh and I'm also not to eager to see more perfunctory symbolism and inane villain schemes either.
Hey you thought that returns commercial was priceless, just check out the batman one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4DIVqtnTjQ
4 masterpieces?? ha ha i count only 2, pal.
I hate misleading ads.
Yeah, but I don't think any of those films was as bad as Singerman. As Singerman perverted the entire concept and personality of the character itself. No matter how badly done and cheesy those Batman films were, they never corrupted the chracter (other than giving him guns and having him kill people).
-cgeer15
Post a Comment