TMC
2013-03-28 05:53:13 UTC
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=469105
« Thread Started Yesterday at 8:25pm »
Ive just watched it for the first time and whilst it dragged in places
and Brandon Routh wasn't as good as Christopher Reeve I still think it
was a pretty decent movie. It also got decent reviews when it came out
from what I remember.
So why did it not succeed?
(On another note the way they had this as a sequel to the original
2...ignoring parts 3 & 4 ...I sorta wish they had done this with
batman...maybe going back to Tim Burton, Michael Keaton with the Danny
Elfman score after Batman & Robin bombed...)
« Reply #1 Yesterday at 8:29pm »
Superman acts like a creepy weirdo instead of, you know Superman. Kate
Bosworth was pretty miscast. It wasn't too exciting outside of the
legitimately great crashing plane scene and it was too in awe of the
old Superman movies.
« Reply #2 Yesterday at 8:29pm »
I loved it, but there were a few things wrong
- Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, that was a casting mistake. I originally
thought Routh was a mistake, but unlike Bosworth, Routh was awesome.
Bosworth was a terrible Lois, it should have been someone like Rachel
McAdams.
- Too much brooding. I want to see Superman being super, not being
mopey. Singer nailed the scenes where Superman was super, but we
didn't need him spying on Lois.
- The kid. A Superman movie doesn't need a kid.
« Reply #3 Yesterday at 8:42pm »
Speaking just for myself I don't think it anything all that
interesting with Superman or Luthor. The former's best stories always
(at least to me) had to do with his connection to humanity and what it
meant for the world for there to be a demigod of sorts among mortals.
Him being mopey about being alone might have worked as one element
among many others, but as is, it fell flat for me.
Really the whole nature of Superman leaving the people he's always
protected for five years abruptly (and apparently not putting in
better security for the fortress of solitude or doing anything to
ensure Luthor will get/stay imprisoned) just so they can get this
awkward plot development of him having a son with Lois is poorly
thought out.
Luthor too, as much as Spacey tries, still seems shallow. I had my
issues with Hackman in the original films, but I understood it was a
different time and much of the better Lex characterization hadn't been
written yet. The layered magnificent genius of the comics and the
DCAU, one capable and almost willing to be a great man, but defined
and limited by his obsession with Kal-El, is no where to be seen so we
get Spacey yelling at people while doing yet another real estate
scheme.
Those elements, along with a tone and feel that can't decide if its a
true sequel or quasi-remake ultimately drag the movie down to not
being so much bad as a waste of doing some more fun, more interesting,
or more exciting.
« Reply #4 Yesterday at 8:42pm »
What the others said, but I'll explain it thus: Bryan Singer was great
with the x-men films. He successfully translated that universe and the
feeling of being an outsider in the world. That aesthetic doesn't
really work with the Superman universe. Which is why I have mixed
feelings about the upcoming remake.
« Reply #6 Yesterday at 9:02pm »
Yesterday at 8:50pm, subject2 wrote:
I think the brooding and lonely superman was just another attempt to
get the audience to feel for the hero...just like Batman Begins. They
are doing the same with Man Of Steel. I actually don't see why they
don't try and make a superman movie like Ironman or The
Avengers...just seems a perfect atmosphere for a superman movie!
They overthink the elements to Superman when it comes to films. It can
help yes when superheroes are "relatable" however arbitrarily that
term is applied. However the key aspect I've always found has
typically been, "is the hero interesting?" Now some of that can come
with relatability, but it doesn't have to be.
Batman is absurdly wealthy playboy who deals with the grief of his
parents death and the injustice in the world by dressing up in a
batsuit and beating up criminals. Not very much of that is something I
can immediately identify with; however I do find if cool and very
fascinating to see play out in TV, films, cartoons, games, and comics.
Batman/Bruce Wayne is an inherently interesting character.
Same thing with Superman when he's done right. People seem to think
"Well powerful big blue boy scout; yawn." But what does it mean to be
such a person in a flawed world? How does his existence affect people
like Luthor or others, what does Kal-El see in some of his antagonists
(Braniac, Darkseid, Bizarro, etc) that exist within himself? Does the
role of Superman in the world ever change, and what is that change?
Those are the facets I find fascinating and when executed correctly,
they'll make for great stories.
Hell, one not even look towards major productions for this; the Marvel/
DC series on YouTube brilliantly explored Superman as a character in
the world and in popular culture, and that was done with action
figures and one guy voicing everybody. He's a deeply layered
character, when you remember to try and see the world through his
eyes.
« Reply #7 Yesterday at 9:14pm »
Honestly? I love revisiting old school nostalgia, but they went about
it the wrong way here.
Revisiting & reviving the Christopher Reeve era with EVERYONE being a
new actor fell flat on its face. Routh did well, but without Reeve it
just couldn't work the same.
And yeah, Bosworth was an awful Lois. At least find someone who LOOKED
and acted like Margot Kidder. That always bugged me.
« Reply #8 Yesterday at 9:33pm »
Not a bad movie by any means, the plane scene was epic. Action scenes
in general were good. The soap opera just got excessive and I wasn't
big on the kid. Also didn't buy that he could lift that island laced
with kryptonite. It would've drained him too much.
« Reply #9 Yesterday at 9:38pm »
It went too high, too fast, and couldn't sustain it.
I still think the plane scene is the best superhero scene ever
committed to film. But after that?
The plot was a retread of the first movie, but it made much less
sense. The idea that Superman would leave without a word is a bit
ludicrous, and coming back and being more morose just doesn't work.
Spacey as Lex was fine, but he didn't have much to work with. The kid
subplot wasn't awful, but it needed more in my mind. And every action
scene after the plane just couldn't live up. The scenes with Superman
being, well, super, just sort of fell flat.
« Reply #10 Yesterday at 9:47pm »
I gotta reiterate how bad Kate Bosworth was. Of all the things Singer
ripped from the first movie, he couldn't take the time to give us a
Lois Lane with some personality?
I usually prefer Superman when he's more action, less talk, because
when he kicks bad guy ass without a word it's fun to watch. here,
Supes had next to no lines, but there was no reason for it except to
put focus on everyone else but him.
Only problem is, nobody else is doing o saying anything interesting
either.
« Reply #11 Yesterday at 10:15pm »
Reason it sucked that wasn't already mentioned above?
It's a romance. The entire movie is just some overdone romance flick.
I don't remember much action beyond the Airplane scene which was
already stated as the best part of the movie, and I agree with that.
It was just this long drawn out boo hoo why doesn't lois love me story
that ended with a child. Which, regardless of if there is any
semblance of a child in the comics, logically isn't possible. I hate
to quote kevin smith cause I think he became a huge douche too, but
the kid would kick right through her stomach, if his sperm didn't
shoot through her back.
It's funny that Singer apparently wanted to emulate the Donner flicks
because there was nothing about nearly good as Donners cuts of
Superman 1/2. Instead of making his own movie he ripped off the
original series and failed miserably because he made superman an emo
bitch.
Brian Singer is the worst director out there IMO.
I believe man of Steel will be awesome even though they do have kind
of the same tone of clark being an outsider, but unlike returns Man of
Steel superman will actually hit something.
« Reply #12 Yesterday at 10:59pm »
I love Bryan Singer to death, but it's been years since he told a
story that wasn't about someone different/alienated struggling to find
their way through a world that rejects them or can't relate to them. A
gay friend of mine swears up and down that every movie he's made since
Usual Suspects has been a fantasy avatar for Singer's own
homosexuality and his struggles therein.
« Reply #13 Today at 12:34am »
Amongst other things?
Brandon Routh was trying his best to be Christopher Reeves instead of
Clark Kent/Superman.
« Reply #14 Today at 12:38am »
I gotta agree with everyone that the plane scene was amazing. I've
seen Superman do that a dozen times...cartoons, video games, comics,
novels, ect. But to see him do it in "live action" (yeah, yeah, CGI,
whatever) in that way, was just outstanding!
However, I have my own reasons why the movie just wasn't very good,
IMO.
1. Lex again. Yes, I know, I get it, Lex Luthor is Superman's arch
enemy. Only been 4 movies previously that pounded this into my head, I
get it. Really, I think Luthor should have been saved for a cameo or
something like that, and another villain, like Brainiac should have
been the main baddie.
2. Sequel to the Donner films: The Donner movies were good for what
they were in their day, but it'd been 20 years...a reboot was more
needed. A Superman movie that could stand on it's own, showing more
Clark Kent being Superman, and his feelings on various goings on.
Returns felt much more like a Lois Lane movie, than Superman.
That's my two cents. I think everyone else has really done a better
job explaining than I can.
« Thread Started Yesterday at 8:25pm »
Ive just watched it for the first time and whilst it dragged in places
and Brandon Routh wasn't as good as Christopher Reeve I still think it
was a pretty decent movie. It also got decent reviews when it came out
from what I remember.
So why did it not succeed?
(On another note the way they had this as a sequel to the original
2...ignoring parts 3 & 4 ...I sorta wish they had done this with
batman...maybe going back to Tim Burton, Michael Keaton with the Danny
Elfman score after Batman & Robin bombed...)
« Reply #1 Yesterday at 8:29pm »
Superman acts like a creepy weirdo instead of, you know Superman. Kate
Bosworth was pretty miscast. It wasn't too exciting outside of the
legitimately great crashing plane scene and it was too in awe of the
old Superman movies.
« Reply #2 Yesterday at 8:29pm »
I loved it, but there were a few things wrong
- Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, that was a casting mistake. I originally
thought Routh was a mistake, but unlike Bosworth, Routh was awesome.
Bosworth was a terrible Lois, it should have been someone like Rachel
McAdams.
- Too much brooding. I want to see Superman being super, not being
mopey. Singer nailed the scenes where Superman was super, but we
didn't need him spying on Lois.
- The kid. A Superman movie doesn't need a kid.
« Reply #3 Yesterday at 8:42pm »
Speaking just for myself I don't think it anything all that
interesting with Superman or Luthor. The former's best stories always
(at least to me) had to do with his connection to humanity and what it
meant for the world for there to be a demigod of sorts among mortals.
Him being mopey about being alone might have worked as one element
among many others, but as is, it fell flat for me.
Really the whole nature of Superman leaving the people he's always
protected for five years abruptly (and apparently not putting in
better security for the fortress of solitude or doing anything to
ensure Luthor will get/stay imprisoned) just so they can get this
awkward plot development of him having a son with Lois is poorly
thought out.
Luthor too, as much as Spacey tries, still seems shallow. I had my
issues with Hackman in the original films, but I understood it was a
different time and much of the better Lex characterization hadn't been
written yet. The layered magnificent genius of the comics and the
DCAU, one capable and almost willing to be a great man, but defined
and limited by his obsession with Kal-El, is no where to be seen so we
get Spacey yelling at people while doing yet another real estate
scheme.
Those elements, along with a tone and feel that can't decide if its a
true sequel or quasi-remake ultimately drag the movie down to not
being so much bad as a waste of doing some more fun, more interesting,
or more exciting.
« Reply #4 Yesterday at 8:42pm »
What the others said, but I'll explain it thus: Bryan Singer was great
with the x-men films. He successfully translated that universe and the
feeling of being an outsider in the world. That aesthetic doesn't
really work with the Superman universe. Which is why I have mixed
feelings about the upcoming remake.
« Reply #6 Yesterday at 9:02pm »
Yesterday at 8:50pm, subject2 wrote:
I think the brooding and lonely superman was just another attempt to
get the audience to feel for the hero...just like Batman Begins. They
are doing the same with Man Of Steel. I actually don't see why they
don't try and make a superman movie like Ironman or The
Avengers...just seems a perfect atmosphere for a superman movie!
They overthink the elements to Superman when it comes to films. It can
help yes when superheroes are "relatable" however arbitrarily that
term is applied. However the key aspect I've always found has
typically been, "is the hero interesting?" Now some of that can come
with relatability, but it doesn't have to be.
Batman is absurdly wealthy playboy who deals with the grief of his
parents death and the injustice in the world by dressing up in a
batsuit and beating up criminals. Not very much of that is something I
can immediately identify with; however I do find if cool and very
fascinating to see play out in TV, films, cartoons, games, and comics.
Batman/Bruce Wayne is an inherently interesting character.
Same thing with Superman when he's done right. People seem to think
"Well powerful big blue boy scout; yawn." But what does it mean to be
such a person in a flawed world? How does his existence affect people
like Luthor or others, what does Kal-El see in some of his antagonists
(Braniac, Darkseid, Bizarro, etc) that exist within himself? Does the
role of Superman in the world ever change, and what is that change?
Those are the facets I find fascinating and when executed correctly,
they'll make for great stories.
Hell, one not even look towards major productions for this; the Marvel/
DC series on YouTube brilliantly explored Superman as a character in
the world and in popular culture, and that was done with action
figures and one guy voicing everybody. He's a deeply layered
character, when you remember to try and see the world through his
eyes.
« Reply #7 Yesterday at 9:14pm »
Honestly? I love revisiting old school nostalgia, but they went about
it the wrong way here.
Revisiting & reviving the Christopher Reeve era with EVERYONE being a
new actor fell flat on its face. Routh did well, but without Reeve it
just couldn't work the same.
And yeah, Bosworth was an awful Lois. At least find someone who LOOKED
and acted like Margot Kidder. That always bugged me.
« Reply #8 Yesterday at 9:33pm »
Not a bad movie by any means, the plane scene was epic. Action scenes
in general were good. The soap opera just got excessive and I wasn't
big on the kid. Also didn't buy that he could lift that island laced
with kryptonite. It would've drained him too much.
« Reply #9 Yesterday at 9:38pm »
It went too high, too fast, and couldn't sustain it.
I still think the plane scene is the best superhero scene ever
committed to film. But after that?
The plot was a retread of the first movie, but it made much less
sense. The idea that Superman would leave without a word is a bit
ludicrous, and coming back and being more morose just doesn't work.
Spacey as Lex was fine, but he didn't have much to work with. The kid
subplot wasn't awful, but it needed more in my mind. And every action
scene after the plane just couldn't live up. The scenes with Superman
being, well, super, just sort of fell flat.
« Reply #10 Yesterday at 9:47pm »
I gotta reiterate how bad Kate Bosworth was. Of all the things Singer
ripped from the first movie, he couldn't take the time to give us a
Lois Lane with some personality?
I usually prefer Superman when he's more action, less talk, because
when he kicks bad guy ass without a word it's fun to watch. here,
Supes had next to no lines, but there was no reason for it except to
put focus on everyone else but him.
Only problem is, nobody else is doing o saying anything interesting
either.
« Reply #11 Yesterday at 10:15pm »
Reason it sucked that wasn't already mentioned above?
It's a romance. The entire movie is just some overdone romance flick.
I don't remember much action beyond the Airplane scene which was
already stated as the best part of the movie, and I agree with that.
It was just this long drawn out boo hoo why doesn't lois love me story
that ended with a child. Which, regardless of if there is any
semblance of a child in the comics, logically isn't possible. I hate
to quote kevin smith cause I think he became a huge douche too, but
the kid would kick right through her stomach, if his sperm didn't
shoot through her back.
It's funny that Singer apparently wanted to emulate the Donner flicks
because there was nothing about nearly good as Donners cuts of
Superman 1/2. Instead of making his own movie he ripped off the
original series and failed miserably because he made superman an emo
bitch.
Brian Singer is the worst director out there IMO.
I believe man of Steel will be awesome even though they do have kind
of the same tone of clark being an outsider, but unlike returns Man of
Steel superman will actually hit something.
« Reply #12 Yesterday at 10:59pm »
I love Bryan Singer to death, but it's been years since he told a
story that wasn't about someone different/alienated struggling to find
their way through a world that rejects them or can't relate to them. A
gay friend of mine swears up and down that every movie he's made since
Usual Suspects has been a fantasy avatar for Singer's own
homosexuality and his struggles therein.
« Reply #13 Today at 12:34am »
Amongst other things?
Brandon Routh was trying his best to be Christopher Reeves instead of
Clark Kent/Superman.
« Reply #14 Today at 12:38am »
I gotta agree with everyone that the plane scene was amazing. I've
seen Superman do that a dozen times...cartoons, video games, comics,
novels, ect. But to see him do it in "live action" (yeah, yeah, CGI,
whatever) in that way, was just outstanding!
However, I have my own reasons why the movie just wasn't very good,
IMO.
1. Lex again. Yes, I know, I get it, Lex Luthor is Superman's arch
enemy. Only been 4 movies previously that pounded this into my head, I
get it. Really, I think Luthor should have been saved for a cameo or
something like that, and another villain, like Brainiac should have
been the main baddie.
2. Sequel to the Donner films: The Donner movies were good for what
they were in their day, but it'd been 20 years...a reboot was more
needed. A Superman movie that could stand on it's own, showing more
Clark Kent being Superman, and his feelings on various goings on.
Returns felt much more like a Lois Lane movie, than Superman.
That's my two cents. I think everyone else has really done a better
job explaining than I can.