PDA

View Full Version : Superman Returns -- What did you think?



DragonFist
07-02-2006, 09:29 PM
Personally, I loved this movie. I am happy that it was about the loneliness that is Superman and not some epic battle. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see such an epic battle as was in Superman II done with today's technology but fell in love with the beauty of story told.

I have seen reviews however by other that did not have to same view as I do. In some cases, I have seen arguements that make no sense such as "How come Lois doesn't remember being with Superman?" Which are easily answered by watching Superman II again. But not all were of this nature.

So, what did you think of it?

fung
07-02-2006, 09:51 PM
Some of the shots were breathtaking, i.e., Superman gazing down at the world from space. It was refreshing to see a more delicate approach to a superhero film, with more nonphysical character conflicts than otherwise. I disliked the last half hour or so, which felt a little dragged even though the story didn't feel complete to me. No resolution between Superman and Lex?

Penforhire
07-03-2006, 02:11 PM
I liked how it was done and I don't mind the lack of continuity. I much prefer Spacey's sociopathic Lex over Hackman's comic Lex. In general the casting was superior. I agree, some of the effects were breathtaking.

The pacing was odd at times (poorly edited?) and the plotting could have been much tighter (why did/didn't...? because...).

DragonFist
07-03-2006, 03:21 PM
What I don't get is the problems in continuity that other point out. In Superman II, Lois and Superman sleep together after he gives up his powers. The General Zod shows and Supes gets his powers back to kick his ***. Later, Lois is crying to Clark that she can't bear to love him and know who he is but not be able to be with him, so he kisses her and she loses her memory of him being Superman.

Corny, yes, but it is the "history" that this film is based on. I do see the continuity problem.

NanoGator
07-04-2006, 01:44 AM
Um... I don't see the continuity problem. Explain a little more?

DragonFist
07-04-2006, 01:51 AM
I don't see it either. I've just been reading reviews that state their are such. One that was mentioned is why Lois doesn't remember "being with" Superman.

My only explaination is they left the theater early when viewing Superman II.

NanoGator
07-04-2006, 02:06 AM
Heh. Welp, they WERE together during Clark's brief stint as a human. He did wipe her memory. The only weird thing about it was that if that WAS the moment she concieved, he had to leave Earth pretty soon after that. (Considering he left because astronomers thought they found Krypton...)

I dunno... there is some confusion here. Let's say she did get together with another guy shortly after those events in Superman II. Wouldn't she be absolutely shocked at discovering who daddy really was? That should have gotten down right Springer'ish. Hehe.

There is a time discrepency in the movie. II was clealry in the 80's. 20 years had clearly passed. (The kid with the camera phone...) There wasn't much they could have done about that, I suppose... but still. I wouldn't describe that as a movie-killing nitpick.

DragonFist
07-04-2006, 02:18 AM
:agree:

Penforhire
07-04-2006, 09:48 AM
Okay but if we're going to nit-pick -- just how many light-years away would Krypton be? And is the big blue boy scout (sorry, fan of the dark knight here) not smart enough to realize that time factor? If he time-travelled at all why not go back far enough to guarantee Kryton was still around? And another thing....

Matt
07-04-2006, 01:38 PM
Not out in UK yet, really can't wait to see it though, I love the Superman films.

NanoGator
07-04-2006, 03:22 PM
Okay but if we're going to nit-pick -- just how many light-years away would Krypton be? And is the big blue boy scout (sorry, fan of the dark knight here) not smart enough to realize that time factor? If he time-travelled at all why not go back far enough to guarantee Kryton was still around? And another thing....

You saw how much effort it took him to time travel just a little bit in the first movie. As I recall, his father's been dead hundreds of years. Even then, it's not all that clear that he actually travelled back in time as opposed to rewinding the time on the planet. Actually.. from the visuals in that movie.. I'm still scratching my head about that. Heh.

Matt
07-04-2006, 05:53 PM
And wouldn't everyone and everything on the planet have flown into outer space as the planet stopped to a halt before spinning the other way!

DragonFist
07-04-2006, 06:03 PM
Not to get into trying to make reality out of an obvious fantasy, but I think it was supposed to more an application of the theory of relativity. Basically flying faster than the speed of light. The turning backwards of the earth was just the representation of time going backwards. Like I said though, I am not about to take this scene as "realism".

SP00
07-04-2006, 07:53 PM
And wouldn't everyone and everything on the planet have flown into outer space as the planet stopped to a halt before spinning the other way!


LOL, gravity does not work that way. Anyway, I think the timeline is not important. 5 years or 20 years, superman will never age, he is a comic book character and if he did age, he should have been retired long ago. So even if the continuity problem exist, it is not really an issue. In Superman II, he did sleep with lois as a human, but that doesn't mean he will not later sleep with Lois as Superman.

Safe Harbor
07-05-2006, 08:18 AM
Didn't his mother die in one of the previous films? That was the only spot of confusion for me... I swear I remember mention of her funeral or death in III or IV, although I know this was supposed to take place after II so I can understand if they chose to "ignore" that bit of history. Er, future?

jameswillmott
07-05-2006, 09:01 AM
LOL, gravity does not work that way. Anyway, I think the timeline is not important. 5 years or 20 years, superman will never age, he is a comic book character and if he did age, he should have been retired long ago. So even if the continuity problem exist, it is not really an issue. In Superman II, he did sleep with lois as a human, but that doesn't mean he will not later sleep with Lois as Superman.

http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html

steamthunk
07-05-2006, 09:39 AM
Saw this on the weekend. My biggest problem with this movie was that I felt like I had already seen it. It was called Superman: The Movie. A bit of referencing back to the Reeves movies is okay, but there were too many "takes" on the 1st Superman movie to make this a refreshing experience. Another zany plot to get land, more Kryptonite, more romantic flight scenes, more water, even the comedy was very similar. It felt very derivative. I suppose to the youngsters who haven't seen the C. Reeves movies its all new and exciting, but there just wasn't enough new to make it an all time great.

I did like that it wasn't another origin movie. Just wish they went in some different directions. This new Superman actor is very good as supes though. Spacey is good. And James Marsden still can't get a break in superhero movies. :)

mjcrawford
07-05-2006, 10:29 AM
Didn't his mother die in one of the previous films? That was the only spot of confusion for me... I swear I remember mention of her funeral or death in III or IV, although I know this was supposed to take place after II so I can understand if they chose to "ignore" that bit of history. Er, future?

I read an interview with Brian Singer, and they decieded to treat as 'Cannon' the first 2 superman films but not the last 2 as they SUCKED in a big way! this film was ment to be a sequal to Superman II and it worked very well as that, the timeline issue is simple, yes Superman II was in the early 80's but there is never a spicific date mentioned, yes Superman Returns is set today, but not date again. so simply put, 5 years ago superman fought Zod and company and flew of into space to find Krypton, keep in mind as well that he used the space ship that his dad built to travel there and back so the distance is not important. overall I think this was the best Superman film to date, and I for one want a Superman Batman crossover film next!

Safe Harbor
07-05-2006, 11:53 AM
Saw this on the weekend. My biggest problem with this movie was that I felt like I had already seen it. It was called Superman: The Movie. A bit of referencing back to the Reeves movies is okay, but there were too many "takes" on the 1st Superman movie to make this a refreshing experience. Another zany plot to get land, more Kryptonite, more romantic flight scenes, more water, even the comedy was very similar. It felt very derivative. I suppose to the youngsters who haven't seen the C. Reeves movies its all new and exciting, but there just wasn't enough new to make it an all time great.

I did like that it wasn't another origin movie. Just wish they went in some different directions. This new Superman actor is very good as supes though. Spacey is good. And James Marsden still can't get a break in superhero movies. :)

I agree - the whole time I was watching it seemed familiar, like I was watching a remake but not quite. How many times do we have to see Superman (almost) drown due to Kryptonite, run through a corn field chasing trains, save Lois from crashing in some sort of flying machine, and thwart Lex's grand land plan.

And there were some open ended questions...

If Superman is here to "save the world" why is he doing one petty crime at a time?

What happened to "truth, justice, AND THE AMERICAN WAY?" Not PC enough anymore?

Why, when Superman threw HIS crystal into the water as a teen, did we not see electrical interference? Granted he was quite far away from civilization, but seeing as almost the whole US got knocked out, I'd think that maybe Canada and northern Europe would have felt SOMEthing.

What happened to Miss Tessmocker? I missed her... she had WAY more personality than Kitty. Plus I missed hearing Lex yell "Miss TessmocKERRRRR!!!"

Lois must not have been very heartbroken about Superman leaving if she jumped into bed with Richard fast enough to fool him into thinking Jason was his...and I kept waiting for him to shoot laserbeams out of his eyes which ruined his role for me. But they didn't explain this little "family" too well.

Why, if Superman was gone for 5 years, didn't he just fly "backwards" in time to the moment he left? That would have solved a LOT of problems... no mad Lois, Lex still in prison, etc...

Regardless, I enjoyed it a lot and can't wait for the next one. Rouch is GREAT as Superman and there were many times I could see Reeve shining through.

I've also read some reviews mentioning the overt Christ parallels, but I didn't get that feeling at all during the movie, although looking back on it now I can see how people could infer that.

mjcrawford
07-05-2006, 02:14 PM
Superman is a metaphor for God in this film he does not ‘land’ he ‘descends’ from above he talks to people while hovering above them in a godlike way.

Superman is supposed to be a ‘personal’ way to salvation. Therefore he helps everyone, old, young, rich, poor etc.

American way? Today is a global world… how many members of this site are from outside the U.S.? American way is dated.

Superman threw a crystal designed to build the fortress.. remember it was not a plain white crystal like the others. It glowed green.

Miss Tessmocker, Lex is not loyal to anyone, and Miss Tessmocker betrayed Lex in the old films, I really doubt that he would bring her back.

Lois had no memory of her intimate relationship with Superman.. remember the memory wipe kissing power? Richard may have been around in the wings already, with her memory wiped, she may have gotten with him the next day for all we know. Also we do not know how long a Kryptonion pregnancy lasts what if she was pregnant for 12 months instead of 9?

Fly back in time? This is the question that I hear a lot.. sure he could have gone back in time and prevented it all.. but then he could do that every time ANYTHING happened… Superman would be booring if all he did was go back and prevent crimes before they happened.

Safe Harbor
07-05-2006, 03:18 PM
I fully remember the memory wiping kiss... but that just makes the waters even more muddy in terms of this movie.

mjcrawford
07-05-2006, 03:57 PM
I fully remember the memory wiping kiss... but that just makes the waters even more muddy in terms of this movie.

how so? It seamed to make sence to me. Lois was in love with Superman but did not remember being intimite with him... later when he returns she realises she still has feelings for him, but does not suspect that Jason is his.

Safe Harbor
07-05-2006, 04:03 PM
Her emotions towards him are WAY too strong for someone who's "forgotten" her tryst... her hatred is that of a scorned lover, not that of someone who is pining after a man who disappeared.

She is also not surprised in the LEAST when Jason tosses the piano.

Just too many emotions there, which is why there are so many confused people asking why she doesn't remember... She should have shown NO feelings towards him to make it more realistic, if she truly had no memory. Look at how Lois acted towards him after that kiss - complete and utter dismissal. Lois also never showed such deep feelings towards him in the first two movies. Where did they come from if she had no memory of their affair?

Anyways, I can't debate a movie that is complete fiction, as it's totally silly. Besides, I'm at work! :)

mjcrawford
07-05-2006, 06:24 PM
Her emotions towards him are WAY too strong for someone who's "forgotten" her tryst... her hatred is that of a scorned lover, not that of someone who is pining after a man who disappeared.

She is also not surprised in the LEAST when Jason tosses the piano.

Just too many emotions there, which is why there are so many confused people asking why she doesn't remember... She should have shown NO feelings towards him to make it more realistic, if she truly had no memory. Look at how Lois acted towards him after that kiss - complete and utter dismissal. Lois also never showed such deep feelings towards him in the first two movies. Where did they come from if she had no memory of their affair?

Anyways, I can't debate a movie that is complete fiction, as it's totally silly. Besides, I'm at work! :)

consider that Lois and Superman had a little bit of a realationship in the first film that spawned the "my night with Superman" article and after Clark wiped her memory the first thing that someone mentioned was that she was probubly thinking about Superman... her love for the man of steel was obvious even if they never 'did it' then he just leaves... leaving her hanging.. she thought that she was on the verge of having a serious relationship then he dissappears.. that would piss off most people.

as for the piano.. of course she was not overtly shocked.. Lex already identified who the real father was when he waved the kryptionote in front of Jason.

I understand If you cannot keep posting right now.. but food for thought...

Celshader
07-05-2006, 06:43 PM
Why, if Superman was gone for 5 years, didn't he just fly "backwards" in time to the moment he left?

In the first film, Jor-El forbade Kal-El to "interfere with human history." He defied his father's order to resurrect Lois, but I'm not sure he's going to muck around with folks' lives again.

Besides, what if a lot of cool things happened along with the bad things over the past five years? Turning back time could fix Superman's problems...but it might also risk losing a cure for cancer, improved space exploration and the next Harry Potter book. ;)

NanoGator
07-05-2006, 06:45 PM
I still cannot imagine a lady suddenly discovering she had the kid of a superhero without remembering any incidents that could have caused the conception of a kid by a super hero not going Tazmanian Devil on said superhero.

mjcrawford
07-05-2006, 07:10 PM
I still cannot imagine a lady suddenly discovering she had the kid of a superhero without remembering any incidents that could have caused the conception of a kid by a super hero not going Tazmanian Devil on said superhero.

he could claim that he was "Faster than a speeding bullet!" :D

The Wizzard
07-05-2006, 09:55 PM
And wouldn't everyone and everything on the planet have flown into outer space as the planet stopped to a halt before spinning the other way!
No, it's the mass of the planet that keeps everything on it - The size or mass of a planet causes a force called gravity ! :) Not the rotation