No Superman movie!

[CA Rodgers]

I guess I'm one of the only people in the world, that liked Bryan Singers Superman Returns. I think it's really that Warner Brothers canned The new one! All because America has a shitty attention span!!! It's the same shit with Ang Lees Hulk, a great fucking movie. But it didn't have enough action in it for everyone. Well if you want to see some shit get all blown to hell, do see a fucking Micheal Bay movie, or death Race I don't care. I think their should be another Superman movie, and if Bryan Singer is going to do it. Why the hell not? The first and second X- Men movie rocked!!! It's a big mistake and it makes me sad

[Jables]

There's a wonderful middle ground between brainless action and... wait, are you advocating scifi documentaries starring low key australian actors or terrible line-for-line remakes of classic films?

 

Either way, Hulk was terribly boring for anyone who's not masturbating over testtubes or made-up science/radiation, and Superman Returns replicated the original movie to such a degree it was less homage than just insulting to the memory of Reeves, Kidder & co, and anything new it brought to the table was just flat-out cack. I'd heard news that a contract somewhere said there were 2 more movies to come and was mortified at the idea. Infact, I thought this thread was a boycott of subsequent inferior sequels.

 

And in regards to Hulk, are you honestly trying to tell us the Lee/Bana effort was superior to the new one?

[CA Rodgers]

There's a wonderful middle ground between brainless action and... wait, are you advocating scifi documentaries starring low key australian actors or terrible line-for-line remakes of classic films?

 

Either way, Hulk was terribly boring for anyone who's not masturbating over testtubes or made-up science/radiation, and Superman Returns replicated the original movie to such a degree it was less homage than just insulting to the memory of Reeves, Kidder & co, and anything new it brought to the table was just flat-out cack. I'd heard news that a contract somewhere said there were 2 more movies to come and was mortified at the idea. Infact, I thought this thread was a boycott of subsequent inferior sequels.

 

And in regards to Hulk, are you honestly trying to tell us the Lee/Bana effort was superior to the new one?

I don't see how it was insulting to Reeves! The first superman movie with him sucked!!! To say it's insulting isn't true, it's more of a compliment to the creator of superman. BY BEING BETTER! The reason Superman Returns didn't do well was not because it was a bad movie. It was because everyone else said it was a bad movie.

 

Ang Lee won the oscar after HULK!!!

[Silent Bob]

Ang Lee won the oscar after HULK!!!

 

And Steven Spielberg won an oscar after The Lost World. Doesn't make The Lost World a good film.

 

But I liked Superman Returns too. I think it did a lot of things wrong (

Super Son? Dear god in heaven...

) but it was a nice way to reintroduce the franchise and it had a great cast. Kevin Spacey was wonderful as Luthor and I was pleasantly surprised at how good Routh did in the Supes role. The most disappointing thing about them rebooting the franchise (again) is that he probably won't get another shot in the cape.

[Iambaytor]

While I enjoyed Superman Returns a fair amount it would be nice for Superman to actually fight someone as opposed to fly and lift things. It was a decent homage to Richard Donner but what people need is a sequel not a tribute.

 

As for Hulk, maybe if it had done anything cinematically significant but it was half too-stuck-up-its-own-ass-for-its-own-good dramatic Oscar bait type movie and half mindless retarded action film. The only good thing it did was try and experiment with the whole comic panels look but ultimately that was just too headache inducing and hard to concnetrate on.

[Reverend Jax]

There was one major problem with both Superman Returns and Hulk, and it wasn't that they were too deep for America's attention span, and it wasn't that they didn't have enough action. It was they were character driven stories with characters that you didn't care about. The difference between 2003 Hulk and 2008 Hulk that actually made the latter a better movie was that I cared about Bruce Banner in 2008. Why were the Spider-Man movies so successful. Because I cared about Peter Parker (despite all SP3's problems, I still cared about Parker). Why did Iron Man do well? Was it because of all the mindless action and low-attention span required to enjoy it? No, it was Tony Stark. Now, I'm crediting characters here, not actors, because I don't know if different actors could have saved Superman Returns or Hulk 03, but I doubt it. Then again, I try imagining Hayden Christensen as Peter Parker or Val Kilmer as Tony Stark and suddenly I remember how important proper casting is.

[CA Rodgers]

There was one major problem with both Superman Returns and Hulk, and it wasn't that they were too deep for America's attention span, and it wasn't that they didn't have enough action. It was they were character driven stories with characters that you didn't care about. The difference between 2003 Hulk and 2008 Hulk that actually made the latter a better movie was that I cared about Bruce Banner in 2008. Why were the Spider-Man movies so successful. Because I cared about Peter Parker (despite all SP3's problems, I still cared about Parker). Why did Iron Man do well? Was it because of all the mindless action and low-attention span required to enjoy it? No, it was Tony Stark. Now, I'm crediting characters here, not actors, because I don't know if different actors could have saved Superman Returns or Hulk 03, but I doubt it. Then again, I try imagining Hayden Christensen as Peter Parker or Val Kilmer as Tony Stark and suddenly I remember how important proper casting is.

That is a good point about the casting, Edward Norton was a better Bruce Banner than Eric Bana. I think the reason Hayden Christensen is so bad in the star wars movies. Is because the star wars movies were written badly. With a he good script like spider man he could of maybe pulled it off. I mean he's an ok actor. Did you ever see my life as a house? If not you should check it out.

[Silent Bob]

Shattered Glass, too. You're right, the guy's a much better actor than Episodes II and III make him out to be. But then, so's Ewan McGregor. And pretty much everyone else in those prequels (except for you, Jake Lloyd, I'm sorry. I saw Jingle All the Way too.)

 

But Jax, I do agree that Superman Returns and especially Hulk didn't do a great job making you feel for their characters, despite the excellent casts. That's why - in the case of Superman Returns, at least - I'm disappointed there won't be a sequel because I think that cast could have really knocked it out of the park with a better story behind them.

[CA Rodgers]

Shattered Glass, too. You're right, the guy's a much better actor than Episodes II and III make him out to be. But then, so's Ewan McGregor. And pretty much everyone else in those prequels (except for you, Jake Lloyd, I'm sorry. I saw Jingle All the Way too.)

 

But Jax, I do agree that Superman Returns and especially Hulk didn't do a great job making you feel for their characters, despite the excellent casts. That's why - in the case of Superman Returns, at least - I'm disappointed there won't be a sequel because I think that cast could have really knocked it out of the park with a better story behind them.

Jingle All The Way!!! That's funny and I agree....

[Reverend Jax]

Well, the issue with Superman Returns is that it failed at being a good character driven movie. The reason it failed to be a good character driven movie is that Superman/Clark Kent is not a great character. Superman's strength (the book, not the character) is its mythos, not its characters. This makes Superman a somewhat different kind of story from most other popular comic book superheroes. When you have a story that works on a strong 'hero myth' archetype, you have to present the story is a monomythic framework, in this case, the Hero's Journey, as described by Joesph Campbell in The Hero With a Thousand Faces. A Superman movie that took a queue from Campbell (the same way George Lucas took a queue from Campbell) could have a great chance at success. Character driven movies about Luke Skywalker or Aragon or Jesus Christ will never be interesting. You have to have a journey. This makes open-ended self-contained stories more difficult, meaning you shouldn't try for an on-going franchise.

[Jables]

My biggest beef with Superman Returns(and admittedly it's less it's fault) is that Bryan Singer dropped off Xmen to go work on that, and as it ended up, both movies were fucking terrible as a result.

[Jumbie]

Since CA Rodgers showed up toniight I'ma post in his thread. Here's some thoughts in random order:

 

-Leathery cape bad

 

-Luthor needs to stop making ridiculous real estate schemes and be an actual villian over something actually interesting.

 

-Super Kid wasn't a bad idea. That scene where he kills Luthor's henchman with the piano was a highpoint of the movie because of the moral implications it brings up. Reminds me of recent events in the Invincible comic. with Kid Omni-man.

 

The execution sucked because A) the actor wasn't right for the job (since when do dark haired Clark and Lois produce a blonde son anyways?) and B) The movie was too scattered and unfocused to make the superkid subplot worthwhile.

 

-Poor, poor, POOR casting on Lois. I'm sorry. I really really tried to give Bosworth a chance, including later viewings but she just isn't a presence.

 

-Routh was adequate or above adequate as Superman. I don't blame him for anything in this movie, but he didn't add much either.

 

-OF COURSE there will be another Superman movie soonl. Anyone who tells you this movie is dead is forgetting the Hulk semi-sequel/ semi-reboot. (which is a weird thing to say because it's been mentioned over and over in this thread.)

 

-I felt like Spacey phoned it in for this performance. Either that, or he tried to be too much like Hackman's Luthor from the first film. I didn't feel like Spacey was driving the character, the way he does in his better roles.

 

-JAX is wrong that Superman can't be an interesting character. The reason so many people think that is that so many creators get hung up on the big stuff and forget the possibilities. They think, "How am I going to portray a God?" and forget that all the failings and insecurities of regular humans apply to Superman too. A good, but exaggerated, example of what I'm talking about would be Sentry in Marvel comics, a Superman level power who's dealing with psychological issues.

 

In fact, I have to say that I further disagree with Jax because I think the MYTHOS is a deadweight on the franchise and prevents it being better. Superman HAS to work at the Daily Planet, so he can't get fired like Peter Parker does every so often. This goes along with why I thought Superkid and Lois being married to Cyclops were good ideas. It got rid of the mythos and freed the character.

 

-My chief disappointment in this movie was frankly that Superman came back from space empty handed. I mean, there's such cool stuff like Brainiac, the Eradicator, even Doomsday that could have been worked in through the Space angle.