Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Or should I say EVIL Robby Reed (the same guy who savaged Infinity Crap so brilliantly)

http://dialbforblog.com/

For my money, nuff said!

Darn! No, Gorilla Witch this time around, what's next?

Aside from the colorful language and huge, albeit, obvious spoilers within, I still want to see Superman Returns. Robby was excited about Superman Returns after finishing Infinite Crisis, so it stands to reason even after his review I still want to be bored.

I enjoyed the movie. I think of it this way:

1) Hey, at least EVIL ROBBY REED didn't have as much material to work with as he did with Infinite Crisis. Each scathing review of each single issue of Infinite Crisis was longer than this one. That's improvement.

2) While the movie still had Jon Peters' name on it, it wasn't really Jon Peter's Superman movie. And I'm grateful for that.

3) While the beginning and ending of the movie seemed...kind of wrong...I feel sure that they will be better in the Director's Cut. The movie was long, and they cut a lot of footage out.

4) This is still the best Superman thing to happen in about 25 years. The lack of dialogue would be the writer's fault, not Bryan Singer's, and whoever wrote this did a far better job than any of the writers hired in the 90s would have. Or the person who wrote Superman III.

The movie was still too long for kids, though. I had a little girl sitting near me in the movie theater, and she was asking questions like "Why is he hurting?" and "After this one, is it over?"

and with this piece http://dialbforblog.com/action1.jpg his credibility as a real fan is dies a painful death, since of course they did recreate the cover of AC No.1 with the run away car scene, green car and all.

That scene clearly recreated the classic Atlas pose.

I pointed that out myself on the message board.

Altho it is JON PETER's Superman -- darker & more 'realistic' (less selfless), wears a black suit (in the Kent crash footage) and fight three polar bears (Luthors goons)

No giant robot spide though - that went to Wild Wild West! :roll:

Believe me, more than anyone, I wanted to be able to praise this to the high heavens if it were good.

BIG IF, there kids..

The suit was gray!

However, I will take this moment to point out how much I HATE Christ imagery!!

I am a Christian, of sorts. I want to be more like Christ. But what I don't want is to see Superman/Spider-Man/Scott Stapp/Tom Welling POSING as Christ! Enough already!

It IS kind of weird how he totally blew the Action #1 analogy...

I have to admit that many of his points have some underlying truth, I suppose it is up to those watching it to judge how much...

Some of his best points for me were the beating by the goons (which I didn't find too gory but which reminded me of a ham-handed Passion of the Christ, and I never even SAW Passion of the Christ) and his points about the intro, which to me simply re-trod the Smallville years of discovery with better CGI, Australian locations, and less a sense of wonder for a second time...

There is a lot of repetition too, and with less dialog, it doesn't seem as good...

I always try to think about an angle that might have made an interesting movie (not necessarily a better comic characterization), and to me, the most interesting missing bit is why Lois wrote and the world honored an article of writing called "Why the World Doesn't Need a Superman"...that's a missing piece the movie could have picked up on for me...

For me, the movie succeeded the most when Superman used his powers, and I can give the movie credit for visually realizing them, but as story items those are properties of Superman that pre-exist the movie itself.

It reminded me of Spider-Man's merciless beating that lasted for about 5 minutes in the first movie. It wasn't fun to watch, so I'm glad I've never seen the Passion of the Christ.

Robby's  complaints about how evil Luthor was are unfounded, if you've ever read The Death of Superman or seen the first movie...but greed as his primary motivation didn't fit well.

Overall, I thought that Bryan Singer showed a tremendous amount of respect for his source material (The Donner film and Fleisher cartoons.) As I said before, any problems in the story were primarily the writer's fault.

Anyone know where the guy lives?

*hefts a heavy socket wrench*

I want to have a word with him.

Really though how seriously can you take a guy who does all his negative reviews of anything as "Evil Bobby Reed". Does not that imply that he is actually wrong....

Well, I believe in free speech...even EVIL free speech. And I stand by all of his reviews of Infinite Crisis, and some of his criticisms of the movie. But from a Superman fan standpoint, has there been anything better in the last 25 years?

Lois and Clark sure wasn't. Smallville has failed. The 3-part Animated Series arcs were pretty good, but in order for Superman comics to be good he had to be called "Supreme."

And when was the last time I saw Lex Luthor portrayed as a smart person on film? Hmm...well, I was watching some Kirk Alyn serials a couple of weeks ago, but aside from that it was SUPERFRIENDS: REST IN PEACE

Still, I found myself in agreement with a lot of what he said and had raised some of the same issues in my fisrt review here. :evil:

Well, there hasn't been much movie action in 25 years...

Its interesting, I think Klar might have a more negative reaction than his review here, and I'd like to hear Rao's complete take...and for me, I think that the footage of Superman feats made me forget the story and execution faults, but not to the point where I would dispute that this might be a failed movie...

Maybe I didn't have such great expectations of the film in the first place, so it exceeded my expectations a little. Most critics seem to be giving the film a 4/5, and I generally agree with that. I was excited to see a Superman film, and I loved Kevin Spacey's performance, but I wasn't completely blown away by the movie. I have a feeling that I would enjoy the adaptation more.

The primary reason that I have been excited about the movie has never been the movie itself (that still probably holds true) but all of the DVD releases that are coming about because of it:

1) "Look, up in the Sky..." A documentary on Superman? A mostly accurate one? Prominently featuring Elliot S! Maggin? (on a panel including Gene Simmons, but still)

2) Max Fleischer cartoons...finally cleaned up and remastered with extras.

3) Kirk Alyn serials on DVD

4) The Adventures of Superboy. The only reason this TV Show escaped copyright hell was because of this movie.

5) And the Holy Grail... Superman II: The Donner Cut. The only pieces of Donner footage used in Superman II were mostly Luthor scenes that Gene Hackman couldn't reshoot. This release, on the other hand, is going to be over 75% Donner footage, an entire Christopher Reeve Superman movie that we've never seen!

Plus, that Ben Affleck thing.  We'll see how that pans out.

Well, I always like to remember a bit of math in times like this:

1. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

2. Anyone with a modem and a few bucks a month can run a website.

Therefore...(or is it "however"?)

3. Simply having an opinion "published" on a website doesn't make it any more important, insightful or "correct" than any other opinion.

Evil Robbie is always good for a laugh, anyway.   But I could do without the language.

Well, the language certainly adds nothing IMO...

BUT, I have to ask, what does this movie add, and you have to say add, because it's billed as a new chapter after Superman II?  Its funny that I do agree that Supes II made some major mistakes (the zoners were fine, but Superman renouncing his power and getting it back are not) that can't be overcome by a sequel...especially by new characters and a story line built by a Superman/Lois child.

I maybe just disagree with the "mistakes" assumption of Supes I, the iconic to the comedic (I figure those are part and parcel of the most mighty of beings going to interact with the world), to the serious at the end worked as a single package for me...

And me was an 18 year old coming out of the theater in 1978...

The review was pretty awful I thought - and the creds went straight down the tube when he chose the Atlas pose over the actual Action #1 scene.  Not that I cared anyway, but as mentioned before, a modem and a few bucks - and there you are.

I like the kid angle.  I think the comics should have really done this years ago.  Superman as a dad is a very cool prospect.

As much as I liked the movie, I think the review made some good points.

About 30 minutes into Superman Returns, I realized that it was a remake of the first two movies.  Even down to the expunged Krypton scenes that we won't see until the extended home-video release.  Unlike Bobby, I didn't think this was a bad thing.

The kryptonite knife scene bugged me, the lack of communication between anyone bugged me, the piano-murder of the henchman bugged me a lot, and Superman did seem pretty stupid throughout the whole thing.  I think a much better use for Brando's dialogue could have been found.  I like the idea of a kid, but I think it could have been handled a bit better.

I also think Superman spent a little too much time drinking in the adulation.

My take on it was that Bryan Singer loves Superman, truly "gets" the character, and can make an absolutely fantastic movie - he just needs a good script.

There was so much about this movie that I thought was wonderful and brilliant; and so much that I thought was horrible; that I can't even figure out whether I liked it or not.  I'll have to wait until the DVD.

:s:

Last night after watching this movie, I agree with most of his review. He does make valid points if you sift through the sarcastic tone. Probably the biggest criticism of Robby's review, besides the language, was the Superman Action Comics #1 cover comparison that was actually a homage to Atlas carrying the world. While SR clearly depicts Superman holding the Daily Planet over his head in classic Atlas style, Robby should have written about the actual part in the movie where Superman does lift Kitty's car albiet Action #1. Heck, a kid's cell phone photo is even shown of this scene later in a humorous moment.

I disagree with Robby's initial response of Superman Returns is boring. No, Superman Returns is not boring. It just lacks heart and emotion. Aside from Jimmy Olsen and Perry White, the rest of the cast were bland and uninspired caricatures. As Great Rao wrote, this is not even a true sequel but a remake or as I prefer to call it a poor parody.    

** out of *****

Pastiche may be the word we're looking for as opposed to parody or remake.

Something that sort of resembles trhe orginal product sort of in the style and manner of that original and yet clearly isn't.

Being someone that has rather unpopular opinions myself (HERCULES UNBOUND = thumbs up, Steve Englehart's FANTASTIC FOUR = thumbs up, Marty Pasko's WONDER WOMAN = thumbs up, Mark Waid Flash= thumbs down, KINGDOM COME = thumb way, way down) I can sort of sympethize with some piker on the internet that doesn't like something that a lot of other people like.



You mean Mr. Whoopi? Skeletor and Dracula himself? I find it ironic he's being said to be the only one "above" this material. That guy's more of a comic book veteran than anybody else. Though it is true, his performance was pretty good.



Wouldn't you love to just be a fly on the wall when this guy discovers AVENGERS FOREVER?

Look, homages, references and things of this nature do not automatically make a movie bad, at least for that reason. They can be used to conjure up things with a lot of dramatic power. Brian Singer was right, you really can't do a Superman movie without that music. It would be like STAR WARS without the music.



Ha ha ha ha ha...now THIS, I've got to agree with.





"Won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?"

Oh, c'mon, compared to a movie that nearly the entire universe agrees is kid friendly (Dick Donner's THE GOONIES) Son of Superman has it a little easy, don't you think?

And this is truly tame compared to all the brawny he-man action in supposedly "kid-friendly" works of classic literature like TREASURE ISLAND, SHE, KING SOLOMON'S MINES, and GIANT SIZED AVENGERS #2.

But hey, as with INFINITE CRISIS, it's easy to call something "not family friendly" if we don't LIKE it.



Now this was the moment I said "Oh, you've just got to be kidding me." Never mind that, if Spider-Man's comic book history was a big fat juicy steak, the alien costume story would be the bone and gristle left behind after you eat it. Never mind the total cluelessness of the Spider-Man movies thus far, which have been poorly edited, and have tons of scenes of Spider-Man staring off into space or buying an ice cream cone, the lack of humor or warmth, and the near endless Aunt May monologues. Every single crack this wiseass gives about SUPERMAN RETURNS could be applied to Spider-Man...and even better there, in fact.

On the other hand, I look forward to this film just as much as I enjoyed LESS THAN ZERO, because LESS THAN ZERO answered a question I always wanted to know: who'd win in a slapfight, James Spader, or Andrew McCarthy?

Hey, who'd win in a fight: the punk from THAT 70s SHOW, or Tobey MacGuire?

Next Summer...WE'LL FIND OUT!

Naw, I mean parody.   :cry:

a feeble or ridiculous imitation

No, Spaceballs was a parody of Star Wars.

Superman Returns was not a parody no matter how much you didn't like it.

SUPERDUPERMAN is parody via classic Mad.

(http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/33/superduperman_wood.gif)

Webster's Dictionary defines pastiche as ......A dramatic, literary, or musical piece openly imitating the previous works of other artists

and that would be SUPERMAN RETURNS

Pokes Jax-Ur in his good eye.....

As I run for my life!

Klar, as someone who has read quite a number of Sherlock Holmes pastiches, I think you have made an excellent observation and I thank you for it.

Superman Returns, like most Holmes pastiches, does an incredible job at imitating the most minute details and of sounding and looking just like the real thing; but it also gets so much wrong and is sadly missing the heart and soul.

And now knowing Superman Returns for what it is - a Superman pastiche - I can appreciate it.

:s:

Ah Rao, another reader of Robt L. Fish! :wink:

We should probably have a thread for suitably stimulating Superman Returns reviews and recaps.  Here's one to add to the list:

http://teh-no.livejournal.com/120523.html

I agree "pastiche" is a pretty apt description.  The odd thing is I still like it better than the originals.

As has been remarked above, SR repeats the basic structure of S:TM almost slavishly, with a little of S:II thrown in (like Luthor accessing the fortress).  And in several places, the dialog is a direct lift from the earlier films (in the case of the Jor-El speech now being used by Kal-El at the end, it works.  Elsewhere -- "hope this hasn't put you off flying"..."my dad always said to me"...and so on...it's annoying.  How many of us in real life go around repeating the same speeches all the time?).  BUT...in my case, I think the new film holds together better structurally than the older ones, and does a better job of serving up what I want to see in a Superman movie.  

All of which raises the question: Can a film be superior to another film when in fact it owes so much to said film?  Even if SR does it better, S:TM did it first, so does Singer get full credit for creating something, or is he just the equivalent of a film editor with a huge budget?  I mean, I can make some kick-butt improvements to my house, but that doesn't make me an architect, does it?

Bottom line for me though is that I don't much care.  I'm not really of the opinion that superhero films can qualify as "art" no matter who's making them.  They are commodities, really...franchises, and auteurs need not apply.  It's been said that the Bond films are a series of one film (Dr No) and 19 remakes.  Yet how many people rate Dr No as the best just because it was first?  Sometimes with characters and franchises like these you're allowed to repeat the formula forever with only subtle variations...sometimes the results are better, sometimes worse, but if I like "The Spy Who Loved Me" better than "Thunderball" that's generally accepted as a valid opinion to have.  And if I like SR better than S:TM it's the same thing, in my opinion.

So...has Singer crafted a unique new vision of Superman on film? No, but then I never thought he would and said as much on this board way back when it was revealed SR would be a "sequel" to S:TM and S:II.  But he did create a great piece of entertainment for my money.

No superhero film has ever cracked my Top 20 list of films and likely none ever will.  But taken for what it is...a superhero movie...SR is probably my favorite, with the possible exception of The Incredibles.

I've never thought about it, but no super hero movie comes close to making my top movie list either, though King Kong (1933) and Nosferatu (1924) do, and I liked DC comics more than monster or horror movies as a little kid...