quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty

I don't really understand the bashing that Superman Returns gets sometimes. I thought Singer brought a sense of nostalgia/innocence/purity back to not just the franchise but the character, that has not been seen since Donners version. So he wanted to bring a deeper meaning to the whole thing rather than have Superman fight robots or a giant spider. So what!
Yes, there was the odd niggle. Bosworth as Lois Lane I didn't buy for a second. But look at the set pieces - which I know there was not enough of - which were excellent. The cinematography, the modified suit, the special effects, that music. And most importantly, finding someone who can be the definitive Superman for years to come. Brandon Routh was fantastic. He encapsulated both characters without resorting to imitation, yet he still reminded you of Reeve. Not an easy thing to do.
I for one am looking forward to the next Superman movie and hope Singer returns to direct.

quote:

You only have to look at what he did with the X-Men and its sequel to know he is the right man for the job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FoximusPrime

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mason Verger

Some things that could make Superman 6 better than Superman Returns (not difficult).

1. An engaging plot
2. No more Luthor! 4 films is more than enough.
3. Originality.
4. A villain as powerful or more powerful than Superman
5. No kryptonite
6. At least three really good action sequences 
7. A belief that superhero films should be fun and escapist rather than pompous and humourless.
8. A change of director.
    

AMEN TO THAT! For a minute I thought I was the only one who thought Superman Returns smoked bone!!

Honestly, the film was like a collection of religious symbolism all strung together by a flimsy plot that might- just might- have been done in Superman: The Movie. But of course we have the added bonus of superboy, just to ram home the biblical bullshit even harder. Reminds me of Neo flying at the end of the Matrix: Can of worms, much?

It looked great and I'm sure it was a nice little project for Singer, but there was zero substance as an entertaining film.

Oh, and a question: What was the purpose of showing us that flashback of Clark's childhood? It seemed to have no relevance to the story whatsoever, other than to show us he was once a child. Who could fly. Is it an exercise in joining the dots? "Look, there's Kal-el as a kid with super powers. Now don't forget that cos it might come in handy later on- you know, a kid. With super powers..."

Basically, Singer's forced us to see that father-son-son-father crap, now let's focus on Superman again shall we? I am looking forward to Supes VI, but it needs a NEW story, but a GOOD, established villain/evil scheme combo (I'm fine with Luthor again, but lets leave the real estate eh?), a la Kevin Smith's pitch. Do completely original main characters in these films ever work?

I wouldn't have thought the next one could be anything other than an improvement (unless we get a shot-for-shot remake of Supes 4)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctorolorinbats1975

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty

I don't really understand the bashing that Superman Returns gets sometimes. I thought Singer brought a sense of nostalgia/innocence/purity back to not just the franchise but the character, that has not been seen since Donners version. So he wanted to bring a deeper meaning to the whole thing rather than have Superman fight robots or a giant spider. So what!
Yes, there was the odd niggle. Bosworth as Lois Lane I didn't buy for a second. But look at the set pieces - which I know there was not enough of - which were excellent. The cinematography, the modified suit, the special effects, that music. And most importantly, finding someone who can be the definitive Superman for years to come. Brandon Routh was fantastic. He encapsulated both characters without resorting to imitation, yet he still reminded you of Reeve. Not an easy thing to do.
I for one am looking forward to the next Superman movie and hope Singer returns to direct.

Exactly, although I found Bosworth decent enough. Besides, the key to Superman is not a big monster: it's revealing something about Clark Kent, which the best Superman stories are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdCoen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FoximusPrime

AMEN TO THAT! For a minute I thought I was the only one who thought Superman Returns smoked bone!!

Honestly, the film was like a collection of religious symbolism all strung together by a flimsy plot that might- just might- have been done in Superman: The Movie. But of course we have the added bonus of superboy, just to ram home the biblical bullshit even harder. Reminds me of Neo flying at the end of the Matrix: Can of worms, much?

It looked great and I'm sure it was a nice little project for Singer, but there was zero substance as an entertaining film.

Oh, and a question: What was the purpose of showing us that flashback of Clark's childhood? It seemed to have no relevance to the story whatsoever, other than to show us he was once a child. Who could fly. Is it an exercise in joining the dots? "Look, there's Kal-el as a kid with super powers. Now don't forget that cos it might come in handy later on- you know, a kid. With super powers..."

Basically, Singer's forced us to see that father-son-son-father crap, now let's focus on Superman again shall we? I am looking forward to Supes VI, but it needs a NEW story, but a GOOD, established villain/evil scheme combo (I'm fine with Luthor again, but lets leave the real estate eh?), a la Kevin Smith's pitch. Do completely original main characters in these films ever work?

I wouldn't have thought the next one could be anything other than an improvement (unless we get a shot-for-shot remake of Supes 4)

I think the purpose of the flashbacks to Clark as a boy, wherein a young Clark acquired his powers of flight in order to avoid falling through the barn roof onto some nasty looking farm hardware, was to foreshadow the fact that his powers come to him out of necessity.  So when Lois is about to be killed Superboy pushes a piano across the room, saving his mom.
Maybe it was too subtle...

quote:

Oh, and necessity? I'm thinking the fact the young Clark could leap a couple of miles at a time and was picking up Jonathan Kent's pickup (no pun intended) the minute he crashed on Earth, would mean that Clark was reasonably aware that a couple of steel spikes wouldn't pose too much danger.

quote:

  Forget all that Brainic tripe. Superman should team up with Flash Gordan and have some jolly adventures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

It still does not explain how he could charge up to the degree he did when only flying above clouds for a few minutes as there would not be enough energy in the suns rays to charge him to that degree and also the fact that he had super powers when he had been away from the suns rays for 5 years yet had his powers as soon as he returned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

It still does not explain how he could charge up to the degree he did when only flying above clouds for a few minutes as there would not be enough energy in the suns rays to charge him to that degree and also the fact that he had super powers when he had been away from the suns rays for 5 years yet had his powers as soon as he returned.

Well he was never really "away from the suns rays", simply a greater distance from them. And as he got closer to the Earth, he would have begun to be affected by the sun. He was still very weak when he landed however. He had the capsule thing to protect him landing from space anyway.

And there was clearly a sufficient amount of energy to charge him because, well, he was charged. This criticism doesn't make any sense to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

It still does not explain how he could charge up to the degree he did when only flying above clouds for a few minutes as there would not be enough energy in the suns rays to charge him to that degree and also the fact that he had super powers when he had been away from the suns rays for 5 years yet had his powers as soon as he returned.

Well he was never really "away from the suns rays", simply a greater distance from them. And as he got closer to the Earth, he would have begun to be affected by the sun. He was still very weak when he landed however. He had the capsule thing to protect him landing from space anyway.

And there was clearly a sufficient amount of energy to charge him because, well, he was charged. This criticism doesn't make any sense to me.

He was thousands if not millions of lightyears away from Earth and the yellow suns rays for a period of years which would have drained him surely.  Earlier arguments for how he could lift the Kryptonite island related to him supercharging himself by flying above the clouds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdCoen

I wasn't implying it was too subtle for you notice it.  Perhaps a better way of expressing myself would have been to say it was too ineffective, but I still think it was Singer's intention.  YC can leap miles at a time but it was fairly obvious falling into the barn was the first time he'd flown.  He covers his face when he thinks he's about to land on the metal spikes, whether he believes they'll hurt him or not, a natural human and kryptonian reaction, I'm sure.
I think the main problem with the Superboy story is the inconsistencies.  Kryptonite didn't affect him, he can't summon his powers at will, et cetera.  The creative team of SR regularly stated they wanted Superman to be emotionally tested, and I suspect the kid will bite the bullet (not in the same way his dad is able, of course) in the next film.  That would p!ss Supes right off.
And I'm not a particulary big fan of comic book films, I only see the best ones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kumar

when i came out of the cinema after SR i thought the kid would die in the sequel, and im still counting on that to happen.