[MyPantsAreOnFire]

And it's not because Batman is "cooler" than Superman or anything like that.

I have to disagree with that. You can't discount that the X-Men, Spiderman and Batman are all vastly more popular than Superman these days if you're going to start comparing the films inspired by these characters, either creatively or financially.

[civilian_number_two]

Jedi: I agree that SUPERMAN RETURNS lacked lustre. But didn't you see everything I said about the Batman movie? Batman is formed from outside, by external design and by accident, more than by his own drive? Nothing happens but to serve plot, rendering all character development null and void? Batman fights off the Scarecrow's fear gas (created by Ra's Al Ghul, apparently, with some kind of chemical solution of his own, derived in a couple of days a la Star Trek? It's apples and rotten apples, man. Sure, BB is better than SR, but I don't think that makes it good. I doubt I'd ever watch it again. Even the 1989 film, campy and silly as it often was ("Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?"), even that thing I saw a few times.

[Lord Aquaman]

Three things.

1) Batman Begins was adored by critics and fans en masse. Unlike Superman Returns which has a pretty even split down the middle. Box Office Mojo has it's overall reveiw rating at a 'B'; it's 'A' rating stands at only 60%. BB has an 'A-' overall and a 75.5% 'A' rating. I don't go by Rotten Tomatoes, they can be a bit too fanboy driven, and we can all admit that we fanboys can be blinded by just the fact that it's a movie centering around a character(s) we love and tend to be forgiving if it sucks.

2) Batman Begins is a more faithful and well done adaptation of Batman. Say what you will about it borrowing certain elements and ignoring others. It worked. I wish Superman had borrowed more from the comics, if only little nuggets here and there. Superman was too reliant on the Donner film and this only hurt it; hell, it was the Donner film redux. Batman is true to the characters it represents and presented them realistically.

3) Batman Begins made it's money back and more. Believe what you want about the quality of the movie, audiences must have found it a hell of a lot more fun and entertaining than Superman Returns. Batman made it's money and more. It's domestic total finished at $205.5 million; it's foreign gross was $166.5 million. It's budget was only $150 million. Superman has only made $185.8 million domestically and $110 million in the foreign markets with a budget of $260 million. Which movie is the box office champ? Superman tanked.

Given the box office alone I'd say that the public (however easily pleased or choose-y you might think them to be for picking the same movie in a different wrapper, since you feel that BB and SR are just as bad when compared) doesn't agree with you. And it's not because Batman is "cooler" than Superman or anything like that. Superman is a messy film and a lesson on how not to do a comic movie. Batman, on the other hand, was unique in it's approach and had a style all it's own. It is, for me, the quintessential comic book movie surpassing Spider-man and Superman: TM. It's in my top 3 comic adaptations of all time along with The Crow and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

And word is there are no plans for a sequel. Thank God! The suits at WB aren't as desperate as I thought.
On a side note: LordAquaman! Did you hear the news? There's talk of an Aquaman movie! Some big Hollywood players have been talking and WB is apparently kicking the idea around. It all started when they saw the number of downloads the pilot for the WB tv show had. It broke records on iTunes! It's a great show, by the way. Hopefully they'll pick it up as a mid-season replacement since the online numbers were so high and it's being embraced by the fans. Heck, it would probably be on the air this season if WB and UPN hadn't gone ahead with that merger.

Hot diggity damn!

I heard they were planning a TV series, "Mercy Reef", that is now in limbo despite the pilot leaking into the net, but a movie?! It's about damn time!

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

I'd actually watch the Aquaman film they made in Entourage...of course, they only showed like 2 minutes of it, so maybe that's why it seemed watchable. I'd lay big money that people ain't gonna tolerate 90+ minutes of King-fuckin'-Fish. He's better suited for one of those awesome Sci-Fi Channel originals...

This post has been edited by MyPantsAreOnFire: 31 July 2006 - 02:10 PM

[Jedi_Arco]

Actually 'Pants, it's funny you mention that show Entourage as it's because of the "Aquaman" movie on that show that it's gaining steam at WB. And, believe it or not, the character on that show that represents the actor that got the part of Aquaman is the producer in real life that is possibly interested in making the Aquaman movie at WB. Or something like that. I'm sorry, I don't have premium cable or satellite services so I've never watched that show. But it's a case of life immitating art.

And the show had a last minute name change from "Mercy Reef" to just "Aquaman" which I liked much better. And if you haven't seen the pilot online, you must. It's really good and could be the movie with some minor tweaks and a bigger effects budget. Although, the effects are quite good as they are. It's like Superman Returns vs. Smallville; I find the effects in Smallville better to be honest.

On to BB. Yes, Civ #2, I did read your review, and it's well written and I understand your complaints. A couple points:
- Year One is cinematic but still not based in a real world type of setting; something that Nolan and Goyer wanted to do with BB was make it feel real and while Miller's work is dark and gritty that doesn't make it real.
- Ra's Al Ghul is one of Batman's greatest villians and his only true equal, for that reason alone he was a perfect choice to be his first nemesis onscreen. Read the Son of the Demon graphic. It gets a couple things wrong about Batman, but it's the best version of Ra's ever and defines their relationship.
- The opera house, I felt, was an inspired move. To make it a movie theatre dates the film; just look at the Burton Batman. By switching it to an opera house and not a movie theatre playing Zorro helps to give the movie a timeless feel.
- Bruce was learning how to think and act like a criminal. To feel what they feel. To know the thought process. "To know thine enemy is to know thyself." When Ra's finds him, he's already skilled in martial arts and can hold his own, but he doesn't know how, or possibly, doesn't want to get out. Ducard helps him find his way. Now, Goyer borrowed that story from an early origin story from the comics where a character named Henri Ducard helped to train Bruce oversees and help him focus his anger. Ducard was an assassin and taught Bruce stealthiness among other things. I think part of the problem is that you're focusing too much on just Year One; this movie was an amalgamation of many Batman stories and some original elements to make a compelling story that would work in a movie version. Sometimes the comics don't work on screen if you do a literal translation.
- Batman did get most of his gadgets and gizmos in the comics from failed military defense contracts or things that were purposely never let past R&D. The Batmobile he had custom built by a mechanic that is on a private payroll. Is that better than the movie? I, personally, loved how they did this in the film. It's almost exactly how the comics did it, with some minor changes. In the comics, he did make his first batsuit, however, it wasn't bullet resistant or glide-capable. That came later when he had Wayne Enterprises develop the technologies and then had them "fail" in the testing phases.
- Setting things up in the First Act so that they can be resolved in the Final Act is called storytelling. Every film does it (well, most) and most every story written does it. Just like your complaint that the flower toxin was derived in a couple of days... weren't you paying attention? Scarecrow had been developing it for the League of Shadows. How long was Bruce away? How long did it take him to do the Batman thing? He was gone for years, and Batman took conceivably months to pull off. The toxin was not made in a couple of days.
- Gordon was handled well, and besides it's not his movie. It is Batman's. And yes, Jim is a huge part of Batman, but this first movie was all about Bats. None of the batfilms before it has focused on Bats; it's always been about the villians. It was about time that they focus on the lead and not his allies or rogues gallery so much.
- I agree that the omittion of Harvey Dent was, at worst, sucky. But in order for a film to work you have to have a female interest. I don't agree with this, but that's the entertainment industry. I didn't much care for Katie Holmes, or the character, but she did what she was there to do and didn't take up too much time. As for the "revealing of his identity because he was despairing", where did you get that? He tells her because she asked, because he cares about her and wanted her to know from the beginning. Not because he's hopeless or doesn't think he can pull this off.
- Lucius may or may not know his identity. He does in the comics; well, some versions. Ra's knows, but this is a whole new League. Most were killed in the monastary. So, only Ra's knows (theoretically) and maybe a few Lt.'s. The others will just follow orders and do what Ra's says, including burning down some billionaire that is standing in the way of true justice. In the comics Ra's has cells around the world of League soldiers. You wanna play the "who knows" game? In the comics: Superman, Wonder Woman, Lois Lane, Vicky Vale, Alfred, Tim Drake, Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Barbara Gordon, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Black Canary, Hush/Red Hood II (incidentally Jason Todd, he used it againt Bats big time), Ra's Al Ghul, Talia Al Ghul, and the list goes on and on. He tells two people in the movie, and two others figure it out. Three of which are trusted allies, and one other that is dead. Maybe. Lazarus pit anyone? And why would Falcone know? Bruce is just a spoiled rich brat that ran away and came back being even more spoiled and rich. He galavants around town with supermodels, driving in fast cars, and buying hotels on the fly. Why would Falcone even for a second think that Bats and Bruce are the same guy?

I think you need to re-watch this movie. BB and SR are not apples and rotten apples. They're apples and rotten oranges. I think we just need to agree to disagree here, as this is getting kinda ridiculous. I'm not gonna change your mind, and you're not gonna change mine. BB rocks! It is thee comic book movie. It's a lesson on how to bring a comic to the screen. SR totally missed the point of Superman. And if you want to talk about predictable storylines. . . the little kid was a set up from the beginning. "Look at how wimpy and sick he is, he can't be Superman's kid!" DUH! Classic bait and switch set up. Saw it coming a mile away, unfortunately; a horrible idea. And Lex was predictable and campy, not suave and devious and smart.

I think we just need to both agree that we aren't going to change the other's thoughts and feelings about either film. To me there is no better comic film than BB. SR was a huge let down and a horrible movie in general. It's painful to sit through. I have watched it three times now, just to make sure I wasn't being unfairly biased or something. It's just a bad each time I watch it.

I agree to disagree.

[Lord Aquaman]

Gentlemen, I'm sure this thread's big enough for both of you.


SUPERMAN: "Take that, Bryan Singer!"
DARKSEID: "Ow! Wait - Bryan Singer? Who is this 'Bryan Singer' you speak of?"
SUPERMAN: "Oh sorry dude, I was thinking of someone else.


WONDER WOMAN: "We know you hate what he did to your new movie, but calm down!"
SUPERMAN: "Bryan... Singer... must... die!"
MARTIAN MANHUNTER: "No my friend! You do not want his death on your hands! And besides, at least you've got a new movie ya ungrateful bastard!"

[StarWarsIsUs]

SUPERMAN: I don't like the way your name is spelled! It bugs the crap out of me!

DARKSEID: ...?!




SUPERMAN: Tell him to spell his name D-A-R-K-S-I-D-E!

WONDERWOMAN: What the heck is wrong with him?

J'ONN: He didn't take his OCD medicine this morning.

[Jedi_Arco]

LOL! That's great!

And I said, I agree to disagree.

[StarWarsIsUs]

BATMAN:A moment like this---Some people wait a lifetime---For a moment like this---Some people search forever...

[Lord Aquaman]

MAX FLEISCHER SUPERMAN: "Bwahahaha, behold pathetic Earthlings my new and improved \S/ insignia - yellow outlining with a red 'S' against a black background! And let's not even get started on the belt! Bwahahahaha!"


BRUCE TIMM SUPERMAN: "Max Fleischer Superman must die!!!"

[civilian_number_two]

Jedi, I agree to disagree with you. I certainly don't agree with your idea that every single thing mentioned need to service the plot, and that this is called "storytelling." Some things are meant simply to be for character. To use an example, remember in the first 1989 Batman film , how Bruce Wayne tells Vicky Vale that he bought that suit of armour in Japan? That's enough to let us know that the character has been to Japan, which may let us in on how he developed some of his techniques. It's played in the film as a joke, but it serves the story as well. It has nothing to do with the plot. If that had happened in BB, then at some point he would have been wearing that suit of armour, or fighting a villain similarly clad.

I never said that the toxin was developed in days. I said that the anti-toxin was. Batman succumbed to it, and then later was completely immune to it. That's so Star Trek.

The movie I saw had Batman developed compleetly by external forces, forces that taught him his techniques, gave him his motivations, and even supplied him with his equipment. That's not the Batman I know, and I have read more Batman comics that Year One. I only mentioned Year One because it was originally the source material for BB, before the writers cut out everything and simply kept a couple of names. In all of the Batman stuff I have read, Batman was his own creator.

The idea that Bruce Wayne finds the Batmobile and the Batsuit completely constructed in Wayne laboratories without any input from him is just idiotic. I do see a distinct difference between Batman hiring contarctors in secret toi deveolp his stuff and Wayne ebterprises having a load of rejected military projects that despite full and documented testing no one will ever connect to Batman. We'll have to agree to disagree if you happen to find that brilliant.

I'm not sure I understand how Nolan's world is more real in your mind than the world of Year One. The depressed and crime-torn city with its magical fear-inducing villain and the nijas running around burning down mansions didn't seem more real to me than the dystopic urban decay of Frank Miller's Gotham. The worst thing Miller did was to imagine a police state with corrupt cops similar to 1920s Chicago. Nolan's world is not similar to anything I have ever seen or read about.

Your mention of Henri Ducard from tnhe Sam Hamm comic couldn't be more poorly used if you'd planned it that way. My complaint was that in the comics, Batman is self-made, and that in Nolan's film, he's created by outside forces. In the comics, BRUCE WAYNE SEEKS OUT DUCARD SO THAT HE MIGHT LEARN FROM HIM. In BB, Ducard finds Wayne in jail and starts teaching him ninja tricks. Ducard sought out self-destructive Wayne and made a hero out of him. This is the exact opposite of the way that Bruce met him in the comics, and if you don't agree that this fundamentally changes the Batman character then we;ll just have to disagree about that too.

[StarWarsIsUs]

Here is the review I did for SR on Amazon.com.

I didn't like this movie, really. I watched it two times in theatres. The second time, I was totally looking for reasons to like this movie, always searching for redeeming qualities that would save the movie. But were there any? No, not really. (aside from the action sequence where Superman saves the airplane. That is about all the real excitement there is.)

The movie was weak; Routh and Bosworth deliver almost un-interesting performances as far as actual acting goes. Most the time they either have blank looks on their faces, or they are babbling bland dialogue. The only 'good' actor was Kevin Spacey, but his acting abilities weren't near strong enough to make up for the lack of talent on Routh and Bosworth's side of the fence.

The suit: why did Bryan Singer change the suit so much? Not only does it subtract from the movie, but it is an EYE-SORE! I found it hard not to keep concentrating on how terrible the suit was... it takes away the viewer's concentration from the almost non-existant and unentertaining storyline. The reds were too dark, and the suit eats up all of Routh's muscles and makes him look like a scrawny whimp!

The storyline is basic: Lex Luthor wants to grow a continent out of crystals he found in the Fortress of Solitude. But not only was Singer not original, but he managed to make a plot that was pretty much already done. No one wants to see another of Lex's real-estate scams.

I hope in the sequel they decide to make some improvements, and actually create a reasonable, enthralling storyline and plot that will keep the audiences at the edge of their seat...

And don't even get me started on the Jason kid...

[Jedi_Arco]

Nice review StarWars. Short, sweet and to the point. I agree with basically every complaint you have. And don't get me started on the stupid kid too. What an unoriginal and unispired idea. Well put, my friend.

Civvy - I luv ya man!

[Lord Aquaman]

SUPERMAN: "Alright, now I gave you fair warning that if you didn't go see my new movie, me and my posse here would come back and kick your ass."
BATMAN: "My posse and *I*, Clark. My posse and-"
SUPERMAN: "Shut the f*** up."
FANBOY WITH CARD: "Do I get a last request?"
SUPERMAN: "Depends on the request."
FANBOY: "Before you beat me up, can I go see Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest?"
SUPERMAN: "No."

[Jaded Wolf]

Okay, I've read enough. I am a real big comic book geek and I admit it freely. To this date I have over 500 comic books in storage boxes. I have seen the original Superman Movies (yes all 4 even though I can't watch 3 and 4 anymore), all Batman films from 1989 to present, X-Men trilogy, Spider-Man movies, Hulk, Daredevil, Elektra, Fantastic 4, and basically any other comic book related movie that came out in the last 20 years. I share all this to let you know I am quite knowledgeable in this field.
With all that being said I throughly enjoyed 'Superman Returns'. There were some things I looked at and went "huh" but for the most part I enjoyed it. Bryan Singer had an unique vision of this film and franchise and it worked out well. I've read the review and frankly I thought just like some of the nitpicking on the Star Wars prequels, it was really insignificant.
Bryan Singer's vision of the film did mirror Donner's film. There was the Lois Lane and Superman scene in the plane. Brandon Routh repeats the line from Christopher Reeve after saving Lois' second air catastrophe. I actually thought this was a touching tribute from Singer. It pays respect to his elders, something not seen much today and maybe why some people here have a problem with that scene. Lois faints and the comment was made that this is not the Lois from the comic books. Well now wait a minute. In one paragraph you make the comment that this is not the same Lois we know in current continuity of comic books. This is a reflection of the golden age of comics, the "pre-crisis" Lois. I remember her as not being as feisty as the current one.
If you are implying that Lois never shows weakness then I refer you to the Death of Superman saga where she is shown cradling Superman and crying her eyes out. So, Lois does show weakness. Yes I will stick with the premise that here is a man she has not seen in 5 years and has very strong feelings for. She was angry and wrote the article. However, this does not mean she would stay mad at him and not still love him. She is only trying to suppress her feelings and lash out in a way to cover them.
There was the nitpick of Bryan Singer not making more references in the film that this was indeed a sequel remake of Superman II. Why is it in the Star Wars forum, chefelf insults George Lucas for insulting the audiences' intelligence but when Bryan Singer does not do that you get insulted? You would have gotten insulted if in the SR Superman looks into the camera and says, "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm returning five years after Zod attacked the planet, I made Lois forget our little triste, and I returned Lex to jail." Now come on, maybe Bryan felt we didn't need that level of guidance.
I think there was enough to let us know that this was five years after Superman II. There was the repeat of lines from Superman (see above with the plane and also the comments about Lois' smoking). This lets you know that this is a continuation of what has come before. Lex says Superman put him in jail. Gee, wonder when that happened? Believe me, this movie lets itself be made known as a sequel. Could Bryan Singer have made a remake? Sure, but he wanted to pay homage to what came before because it was good (Superman I and II) and Bryan has that much respect towards his peers (again something I find lacking among today's generation).
Clark receiving his job back after years of absence was a little unrealistic but then again it was mentioned in the film that he was on assignment in another country. So maybe it was a news agency supported by Perry White. Again, nothing is said to confirm that but I beleive Bryan wasn't looking to spoon feed us like everyone blamed Lucas for doing.
I liked Kevin Spacey's portrayal of Luthor was deadpan and I hated the comic goofiness of Hackman's character. I know that Luthor in the pre-crisis was this way but I like the current portrayal of Luthor in the comics and Smallville. It is better and Spacey hits it good. He still throws in that maniacal side when he taunts Lois on the yacht but you also know this is a Luthor you don't want to screw around with. In the comics currently, Superman knows Luthor is a mere human but has a certain amount of fear towards Luthor. Why? Because Luthor is a genius and knows how to use his mind to hurt others and Superman. In the movie, Superman gets taught that this is not the same bumbling Luthor we saw in Donner's set. And Otis? You're actually asking about Otis? He is like the Jar Jar Binks of Superman! How can you like Otis but despise Jar Jar (just a note, I dislike Jar Jar also but am just curious)?
Lois' son threw me for a loop but then again it leads to some possibilities. I think Brandon did a good job for his portrayal and his likeness toward Christopher Reeve. Again, I believe was showing respect to what came before him. Kate's portrayal was not the best but I liked hers better than the old lady Margot Kidder. Let me tell you that Margot Kidder is not the Lois from the comic books, physically and character wise.
Superman doesn't kill you say? Really. I refer you to the comic books where he does in fact kill Zod and his henchmen with a case of Kryptonite in a lead box. It is the one scene that haunts Superman. It is not like Superman in the movie set out to intentionally kill the goons. He went after the island. If the goons were unable to get off that island then oh well. Maybe Superman did not care at this point. Hello, he got stabbed dude. Anyways, to say that this is out of Superman's character is off base. He killed the evil kyptonians in the comics and Doomsday. He has killed because it was necessary or just a matter of the villians were in the wrong place at wrong time, just like the island.
What was bad about the movie? I didn't like Superman once again throwing junk into space. Is space like the universe's junkyward? I was skeptical about him lifting an island but then again, he just recharged in the sun and maybe his powers really got supercharged. After all, in the current "Superman: All Stars", severe radiation absorption from the sun caused Superman's powers to go into overload. There was the whole hospital scene but I think Bryan was having fun at this point kind of hitting at the death of Superman series in the comic books. Who knows? And I did not like the real estate kick Luthor has. They need to get him into the take over Metropolis corporate schemes.
All in all though, I enjoyed the movie. I will buy the DVD and add it to my comic DVD collection. Watch it for yourself though and don't let me or the naysayers tell you how good or bad the movie was. See it for yourself and you be the judge. Until next time...

This post has been edited by Jaded Wolf: 05 August 2006 - 02:21 PM