Chefelf.com Night Life: Superman Returns . . . - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (11 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »

Superman Returns . . . . . . and crash lands

#31 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 14 July 2006 - 08:52 PM

I disagree that Batman Begins was "brilliant". It isn't in pace with the latest rewrites to the Batman story, so it's its own thing, at best. At worst, the filmmakers purchased Batman: Year One by Frank Miller and then cut out the entire story, but kept some names. As far as hammering on and on to tedium a single idea, I swear that we hear the word "fear" in this movie about as often as Depeche Mode say "I just can't get enough" in the song of that name. Everything in BB was telegraphed to the point of idiotic obviousness. Even the nice setup of the train at the beginning, which in a brilliant film would have been simply an excuse to give us a panoramic view of Gotham City, had to play in to the action climax at the end. I like Nolan's style, and I think Bale is the best Batman ever, but this movie, while marginally less campy than the 1989 Burton offering, was not what I was looking for.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#32 User is offline   MyPantsAreOnFire Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 317
  • Joined: 15-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 14 July 2006 - 10:55 PM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Jul 14 2006, 09:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I disagree that Batman Begins was "brilliant". It isn't in pace with the latest rewrites to the Batman story, so it's its own thing, at best. At worst, the filmmakers purchased Batman: Year One by Frank Miller and then cut out the entire story, but kept some names. As far as hammering on and on to tedium a single idea, I swear that we hear the word "fear" in this movie about as often as Depeche Mode say "I just can't get enough" in the song of that name. Everything in BB was telegraphed to the point of idiotic obviousness. Even the nice setup of the train at the beginning, which in a brilliant film would have been simply an excuse to give us a panoramic view of Gotham City, had to play in to the action climax at the end. I like Nolan's style, and I think Bale is the best Batman ever, but this movie, while marginally less campy than the 1989 Burton offering, was not what I was looking for.


Excellently said. I can safely say that I enjoyed the latest version of Superman just as much as I did the "new" Batman...both really were just reasonably entertaining and well made but not particuarly memorable bits of pop culture fluff. Really, one is about a man dressing all in bat-themed bondage gear and another wears his red undies outside of his blue tights. It's not art OR rocket science...it's 4-color-funnymen smacking about the baddies and being self-important. Done and done.
0

#33 User is offline   Jedi_Arco Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 04-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 15 July 2006 - 01:25 AM

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I totally disagree, though, that Batman Begins is anywhere near Superman Returns. Batman Begins is a great film; it holds true to Batman in every sense and it is extremely entertaining. At least to me. Superman is neither faithful to Superman, nor is it a good movie. These are my opinions, and I have a feeling that you disagree, and that's just fine. We can all coexist. smile.gif

Oh, and Batman Begins borrowed story elements from established Batman lore. It took from some of the classic stuff that Bob Kane thought up, and mostly from the newest versions of his origins, namely Year One by Frank Miller and The Long Halloween by Jeph Loeb. And it's actually pretty damn close to the current origin that Batman has in the comics, and it's way closer to Batman as a character than the new Superman is. Again, just me here. biggrin.gif
0

#34 User is offline   MyPantsAreOnFire Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 317
  • Joined: 15-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 15 July 2006 - 12:23 PM

But when it's all said and done, he's a completely different Batman than any of the "established" Batmen over the years in DC's various continuities. If anything, the Batman Begins (BB) Batman is an "Ultimate Batman" a la Marvel's recent relaunches of their flagship characters to run in tandem with the original versions. Bottom line, comparing the film versions of these characters to their comic counterparts is arbritrary and ultimately fruitless. When it's all said and done, all I expect and I think should be expected are the following...Batman's parents were murdered when he was child in front of him, and the event drove him to punish criminals in ways the "law" never could (while NEVER killing anyone), and he dresses like a bat while he does it. Superman is the last survivor of Krypton, sent on a rocket to Earth, raised by the Kents in Kansas, lives in Metropolis and works at the Daily Planet, loves Lois Lane and is plagued by Lex Luthor. Those are the Cliff Notes points that, in my opinion, that any filmmaker tackling these characters should feel beholden to. Anything else is completely subjective based on how many numerous versions of the characters' susbsequent lives we've seen over the decades. As long as they don't stray wildly from the vague yet familiar ideas of who these characters are, the films typically work...hence whey I don't understand the apparent loathing you have for [/i]Superman Returns[i] (SR). I respect your opinion, and as I've said, I agree with parts of it...it's too long, it's too hinged on the previous films, the Christ metaphor is far too hamfisted...but ultimately I can't see why you'd love BB SO much over SR, going so far as to declare the latter film a truly awful movie. It's nowhere near being a great film, or the end-all, be-all Superman movie, but the argument could be made that we already had that with the first Donner film (or more accurately, had we ever seen the epic he originally made, combining his footage from the 1st and 2nd films). It could be said that trying to "re-launch" Superman on the big screen is fruitless because it's wholly unecessary and any attempts to do so would have to result in something radically different from the icon we know and love.
0

#35 User is offline   Despondent Icon

  • Think for yourself
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:a long time ago
  • Interests:Laughter. Louis pups. Percussion. What binds us. Bicycling, Tennis.
  • Country:United States

Posted 16 July 2006 - 02:12 AM

I saw it, I liked it. The wing ought to have pulled off of the 777, but that's alright. Where the father guy enters, that was pretty cool.
0

#36 User is offline   Supes Icon

  • Sunshine Superman
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,334
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Country:Australia

Posted 16 July 2006 - 11:42 PM

I saw it and enjoyed it. It was not as good as the '78 film, that goes without saying then only real tragedy I found was the inclusion of the child. This was a real waste of time and effort and actually got in the way of what could have been some great character development and re-introduction.

I could really rip this film apart and I'm very aware of that, but I went into it with a very open mind and came out of it with that feeling of enjoyment. That in itself is a happy thing for me. I was worried about Routh but I thought he was great and performed s well as anyone could given the shoes he was stepping into, both the mythology of Superman and the performance of Chris Reeve.

Just a point of clarification on the pre and post crisis Superman. Yes he was powered down from the Silver Age, but he has since been shown to exhibit these almost godlike abilities from time to time. I cannot recal the story line, but one of the comics I read that was definately post-crisis (possibly in the JLA book) Superman is shown to be holding the moon in its orbit and stopping it from crashing into the planet. The moon I believe is a little heavier than the island he lifted at the end of the film so there really should be no issue with this. The Kryptonite infusion however, that is what should have made the difference and I agree with Civ#2. I would have liked to have seen a more cerebral resolution.

All up though I enjoyed this film.

This post has been edited by Supes: 16 July 2006 - 11:44 PM

Luminous beings are we... not this crude matter.
Yoda
0

#37 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 17 July 2006 - 03:43 AM

QUOTE (Jedi_Arco @ Jul 15 2006, 01:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Batman Begins is a great film; it holds true to Batman in every sense and it is extremely entertaining.


I may be out of touch, but the Batman I read about didn't seriously contemplate murdering his parents' killer, and he was not trained by ninjas in the service of Ra's Al Ghoul. Everything in BB was totally circular, to the point that if Batman said he was going to eat a hot dog we knew we were going to have to watch him take a dump later. This kind of screenwriting becomes predictable and dull; the occasionaly atmospheric moment would have worked wonders.

I think though a problem is that the filmmakers chickened out on the moral ambiguity of the Batman. Rather than show us the struggle of conscience as Bruce beats up simple thugs and similarly-troubled economic criminals, he goes straight after organized crime from his first action. Not a single throwaway scene like a bank robbery or a purse snatching. I guess a chief complaint for me is that with the three villains along with the origin story (al threads includint eh origin story tied stupidly together), Batman Begins seemed rushed.

I didn't mean in any way to compare it with Superman Returns. BB is the best of the Batman films by far, while SR did not live up to the two Superman films it tried to follow.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#38 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 17 July 2006 - 04:09 AM

QUOTE (Supes @ Jul 16 2006, 11:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The moon I believe is a little heavier than the island he lifted at the end of the film so there really should be no issue with this.


by at least 57grams
0

#39 User is offline   Jedi_Arco Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 04-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 17 July 2006 - 05:11 PM

Batman Begins does take some liberties with his origins, yes, but it still stays true to the character. The thing that they did with this film that was so different from some of the films before it, was they wanted him to work within a "real" world. The creative team decided to make it as believable as possible and hopefully make the audience believe that a man would be able to do this in the real world. Now, I realize that there are fantasical elements to it, but for the most part they managed to do it. For me, at least. Batman did recieve training from ninja in the comics, albeit not under the control of Ra's. Batman did work for Al Ghul for a storyline in the comics as well, actually leading the army of Al Ghul's into battle. They took aspects from various stories and worked them in where they could and where they would be appropriate. It works for me, and maybe not for others. BB is, by far, the best Batman film ever made, and it stays true to Bat's character. The creators were also the first, that I'm aware of, to actually voluntarily submit the final draft of the script to DC before showing it to WB to get DC's blessing on the project, which they did.

Superman Returns, on the other hand, is only true to the Donner Superman and manages to ignore everything that has come since. There are so many stories, characters, sequences, and ideas that they could have found inspiration in while making SR and they (the creators) chose not to. They also did not seek DC's blessing on this film and WB made the mistake (imo) of giving Singer and company complete creative control over the project with no check and balance system in place. By ignoring so many different stories and versions of Superman mythos to "borrow" from they managed to neglect an entire segment of the audience. It's interesting to note that many comic book writers, artists, and people in the comic industry have been very critical of this movie. I will find the quotes and post them as I'm sure some of you will be skeptical of this. It included Rob Leifeld (sp?), Geoff Johns, Dan Didio, and Paul Levitz himself. Levitz is the current CEO of DC and he was very let down by SR.

Again, we just have to agree to disagree, and I find your p.o.v. extremely interesting and I respect it completely, but I found BB to be a far more interesting, entertaining, and engaging film that never once bored me or made me check my watch to see how much longer I had to wait before it was over. Something that I, sadly, did through both viewings of SR.

On a related note, SR dropped at the box office to 4th place with just over 11 million dollars. It's total stands at around 163 or so million dollars, and most are predicting that it will NOT hit the 200 million dollar mark. The current prediction, based on the trends at the box office, the films being released this weekend, the number of screens it's still playing on, and the large percentage of audience drop off that SR has experienced over the weeks, is predicted to be somewhere around 188 million dollars. One can only hope. smile.gif

I'm not trying to be mean, I swear. I just really don't want to see a sequel to this movie get made.

** Oh yeah, Barend... YOU CRACK ME UP!! laugh.gif
0

#40 User is offline   SithAvenger Icon

  • Wow, my avatar changed.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,898
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Location:Err... here I guess.
  • Interests:The Interests of a Normal Teenager:<br />-Movies<br />-Things that are awesome<br />-Girls<br />-(Good) Tv shows<br />-Doing evil stuff the good way<br />-Videogames<br />-Hangin' with my friends
  • Country:Mexico

Posted 17 July 2006 - 05:40 PM

Jedi Arco, that review is longer than the movie! laugh.gif

Anyways, I liked it. But it could I agree with civ. It was too long. Some editing could make this movie way better.
Sorry, you won't be seeing a smartass sig here. Try with the next poster.
0

#41 User is offline   Supes Icon

  • Sunshine Superman
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,334
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Country:Australia

Posted 17 July 2006 - 11:35 PM

QUOTE (barend @ Jul 17 2006, 04:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
by at least 57grams


In my best Queenie from Blackadder voice... "I think you'll find it's 58grams with pink elephants."
Luminous beings are we... not this crude matter.
Yoda
0

#42 User is offline   MyPantsAreOnFire Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 317
  • Joined: 15-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 18 July 2006 - 12:09 AM

QUOTE
On a related note, SR dropped at the box office to 4th place with just over 11 million dollars. It's total stands at around 163 or so million dollars, and most are predicting that it will NOT hit the 200 million dollar mark. The current prediction, based on the trends at the box office, the films being released this weekend, the number of screens it's still playing on, and the large percentage of audience drop off that SR has experienced over the weeks, is predicted to be somewhere around 188 million dollars. One can only hope.

I'm not trying to be mean, I swear. I just really don't want to see a sequel to this movie get made.


You're ignoring the total gross, including box office outside of the US (almost always higher than total US gross) and the eventual DVD sales, which will be pretty damn huge. This film is a lock to have a sequel or two.
0

#43 User is offline   Lord Aquaman Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,976
  • Joined: 19-November 04
  • Location:Atlantis
  • Interests:Movies, comic books, some mythology... basically anything that's larger than life.
  • Country:United States

Posted 18 July 2006 - 11:16 AM

QUOTE (MyPantsAreOnFire @ Jul 17 2006, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You're ignoring the total gross, including box office outside of the US (almost always higher than total US gross) and the eventual DVD sales, which will be pretty damn huge. This film is a lock to have a sequel or two.

Well, the film's around $164 million now, and if I heard right there won't be a sequel unless it can crack $200 million domestically, not taking in the money they'll make from overseas (and I hear that SR is getting beaten over there by the Pirates sequel as well). Meanwhile, Pirates 2 is up to $258 million, breaking the previous July records set by Spider-Man. Of course, it's Warner Brothers own fault - they shouldn't have sent the new Superman up against the Pirates sequel. They should have either released Superman in June or waited for either Thanksgiving or Christmas, especially since there are no Harry Potter and no Lord of the Ring movies out to compete against.
I am the Fisher King.

I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
0

#44 User is offline   Jedi_Arco Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 04-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 18 July 2006 - 11:32 AM

QUOTE
QUOTE(MyPantsAreOnFire @ Jul 17 2006, 10:09 PM) *

You're ignoring the total gross, including box office outside of the US (almost always higher than total US gross) and the eventual DVD sales, which will be pretty damn huge. This film is a lock to have a sequel or two.


Lord Aquaman is correct. WB has stated that unless SR cracks $200 million domestic, just DOMESTIC, not including the international gross, there will be NO sequel to SR. The reason behind this is because the reports now say they spent close to $260 million on this film. That's just the budget on the filming and post. It's reported they spent another $50 - $100 million on advertising and publicity for SR. In order for them to green light a sequel, they feel they have to break that $200 million mark. The international and DVD sales will NOT count because there is money to be spent there as well, including international ads and publicity, and then the pressing of the DVD's and the ads for when it is released on DVD among other things. They will have to try and recoup any money spent in those areas, not including the theatrical release. Basically, in order for SR not to be a total loss, it must make at least $200 million domestically, which all projections show now, isn't going to happen. Most industry analysts I've talked to and have read are expecting it to fizzle out at around $188 million. The Lord is also correct in stating that it is not doing well overseas because of the competition from Pirates.

If I don't sound disappointed, you're right. And I'm sorry if I anger or upset anyone out there, that is not my intention. I'm just glad that it's not doing well enough to warrant a sequel. I don't know what they would do, but I doubt that it would be very good. They have written themselves into a corner by introducing the kid and anything that would come next would be contrived, and maybe even painful to watch. I have also "heard" that heads are rolling at WB over this movie. No matter what they say, they were hoping that this movie would be their Spider-man, which it clearly is not.

This post has been edited by Jedi_Arco: 18 July 2006 - 11:33 AM

0

#45 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 18 July 2006 - 08:29 PM

QUOTE (Supes @ Jul 17 2006, 11:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In my best Queenie from Blackadder voice... "I think you'll find it's 58grams with pink elephants."


and just how good is your queenie voice, pray tell?
0

  • (11 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size