jimbo909
Posts: 795
Joined: 24/10/2006
From: Pepperland
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: furrybastard
Oh please, the film was hardly a mess. If nothing else, it was an excellently crafted film, beautifully shot and directed.
As for Luthor, I see where you're coming from. However, I don't think its fair to compare it to a character like Batman who, by his very nature, requires a multitude of villains to challenge him in different areas (The Riddler for his detective side, Two Face is his mirror image in many ways, Joker is psychologically the other side of the same coin).
In the Superman films (and comics) it has always been Luthor who is the real threat to Superman - not just physically (i.e. with kryptonite) but also symbolically. In Returns, Luthor describes himself as a Promethean figure, one who is ultimately helping mankind by stealing fire from the gods. In this instance Superman is the god, selfishly using his powers for egotistical means (Luthor's perspective). For all his dastardly acts, Luthor actually thinks he's the hero; he's the saviour of mankind and Superman has undeservedly usurped his rightful place. Luthor wants to be Superman. 
I've always seen the two as brothers; Superman is the favoured son, the one who gets the powers, the acclaim, the reputation while Luthor is the disappointment and holds all the bitterness and jealousy inherent in that kind of relationship. Yet he has the luxury of freedom without any of the responsibilites Superman has, who must literally and metaphorically carry the world on his shoulders.
In my opinion (and I'm sure it differs with yours and many other peoples'!), Singer was the only one to create this kind of relationship so effectively. In both the story and the themes it was dealing with, I believe Luthor was a necessity, an essential cog in the film's machinery. A character like Darkseid or Brainiac wouldn't fit, wouldn't present the kind of symbolic challenges necessary for this particular film. Without Luthor, the film has no real depth, no thematic coherence.
For the sequel, I think they need to present a more physical threat for Superman but Luthor will ultimately be the main villain behind events, controlling the situation and creating the threat.
I usually high-light the bits I am refering to/agree with in bold but I wont bother this time since I agree with the entire post. Spot on! 
quote:
ORIGINAL: Axel Foley
The criticism itself seems to relate to the same things over and over. Superman’s done this before, there was nothing new, why have Lex try and take over the planet again. Yet, for example James Bond’s return in Casino Royale didn’t seem to meet such criticism, despite it following much the same formula as all the other Bond films.
Now I’m probably about to be told the character itself was the new element, but then wasn’t that the case with Bryan Singer’s Superman? Furryb makes a great point about the relationship between Lex and Superman, which is well worked within the comic book format.
Singer also adds a spiritual layer, which I remember discussing with others much earlier in the thread. I get the idea those posts got deleted, so it’s worth re-stating that Singer was presenting a sensitive saviour figure, who is saddened by what he sees as having happened since he left the world. It’s briefly alluded to as Superman catches sight of an atrocity on television, the idea being that without a saviour we have ended up destroying ourselves. Whether this is something anyone believes is another matter, but the fact is it is a new context for viewing the story.
Furthermore we have a hero who can’t take the thing he wants most: Lois. His love for her even briefly has a darker edge as he stalks after her, but he fights that urge to do the right thing, his frustration manifesting itself in his flight. Watch the graceful way he takes off and lands (again something we’d not seen before) and see the emotion it involves; it is part of his character growth.
The sequence as he and Lois glide across the skyline is both beautiful and romantic (Singer’s Casablanca influence is apparent here) and also underscores the difficulty of their relationship: people can fly in planes but not like this. Lois’s need for Superman juxtaposes with the question of whether the world needs a saviour, which is one of the film’s main themes. At this point Lois is realising the folly of her article, which she is later seen to overturn with a new piece.
I guess if people were after things getting destroyed for 2 hours this wasn’t the film they wanted, but Singer obviously had higher ambitions for his film. Of course the plane rescue, metropolis protection and continent hurling were pretty darned spectacular and the film also had a smart line in humour (I do like the cut to “tofu or veggie wrap” after the heavier moment that proceeds it). Ultimately you can take from it what you want, but of the recent run of summer blockbusters it was one of the most ambitious.
And the same again here.
I loved Superman Returns, I thought it was a well-crafted masterpiece. Think about the shit super-hero movies that were thrown together in the 90's, Spawn, Judge Dread, Batman's Forever and Robin. I think it's wonderful that we can now enjoy super-hero movies that are made by people who really respect and understand the source material and the characters.
Bring on Man of Steel and The Dark Knight. If the level of quality that we have seen is maintained, I can't wait!
_____________________________
"This is an oldie. Well, it's an oldie where I come from."
|
Printable Version
RE: Superman Returns - 
maybe got mixed up with his own name.................. or is it? 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread