Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Administrator's note: this topic has been split from this one (http://superman.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1749).



I thought so, too. They look like they could be twins almost.



Singer said his Luthor is a combination of Hackman and Rosenbaum, "a creepy entrepeneur." So I'm guessing he won't be purely pre or post-Crisis.



I guess if you want a May-December thing between Clark and Lois, it would work (she's 11 years older than him). But if they're contemporaries, Posey doesn't cut it. I was personally hoping for Anne Hathaway as Lois, but I'll give Bosworth a fair chance.

I too, am witholding praise or criticism from Kate Bosworth until I see SUPERMAN RETURNS. I've never seen her in anything. Who knows? She might be great. Or at least the overall high production values and a savvy director and editor can uplift her performance to the rest of the cast.

However, I do think Parker Posey could have been a good Lois. Why?

1) She is one of the few starlets and good looking women in Hollywood that can actually act;

2) She doesn't look THAT old; didn't she play a high schooler in WAITING FOR GUFFMAN, what, 5 years ago? If she did that then, she can play a twentysomething now.

3) Even if there was an age gap between her and Brendan Routh, that wouldn't necessarily be to the detriment of the film as long as the two had chemistry. Margot Kidder was much older than Christopher Reeve in their Superman movies. In fact, that actually is the reason a scene in the movie was cut: it had a young ten year old Lois Lane waiving to a sixteen year old Clark Kent running by a train (which also had cameos by Noel Neil and Kirk Alyn). The scene was cut because it was obvious in the finished film Lois is older than Superman is, not vice-versa. But the Kidder/Reeve dynamic worked, because THEY worked.

I don't know that Routh looks like Superman per se, but he sure looks a lot like Christopher Reeve.  Almost eerily so.

I'm reminded of all the people who've written to me at my James Bond site to suggest a new 007:  "Cast Adrian Paul," they say, "he looks just like a young Sean Connery."  Or "Get Roger Moore's son Geoffrey, he looks like his dad."

Much as I like Sean and Roger, and Chris for that matter, I think every actor deserves a chance to make it on his own in a part without having to look like the last guy in the role.  In the long run I think it works against him...we're left thinking, "Well, he looks like that other guy, but he sure ain't him."  Better to start with a clean slate.

If I have any misgiving about this new film, it's that.  Singer seems to be bending over backward to find a Reeve-like Superman and a Hackman-like Luthor, and using the old music, etc etc in an effort to tie this film to the older ones.  Why?  They were fine for their time, but it's been almost 30 years for Pete's sake, isn't it okay now to create a fresh new take on the character?  After all, Richard Donner wasn't asked to duplicate the old TV show.

Similarly, I'm a bit unnerved by the shots of Parker Posey I've seen.  She looks like a goofball "gun moll" in the Miss Tessmacher mold, and frankly that kind of humor was the biggest weak point in the earlier films.  It wasn't funny 30 years ago (eventually reaching its nadir with Richard Pryor's "Gus Gorman" character) and it'd be ten times less funny now.

This doesn't bother me as much, because for one thing, it proves that Bryan Singer has a veneration for what came before, and therefore a humility about the entire project. It shows their mentality is "what can we keep about Superman that works?" Instead of "hee hee hee, what do we change first?"

Which means, for one thing, it's unlikely Lex Luthor is going to be from Krypton.  :D



The comparison is inexact. While I love George Reeves, the fact is, a big budget studio film with a STAR WARS-level budget can work with a scope and grandeur that a television show can't show you for reasons of cost (not that this approach would make a film "better" at all, it takes story and writing to do that). But my point is this: there is more points of potential duplication between one big budget film and another big budget film than a big budget film with a low budget television show.



Agreed.

However, Bryan Singer has never given us "comic relief" (a codeword for the character in a movie or cartoon we hate more than anyone else), or anything to indicate that he uses this technique.

Also, Parker Posey is honestly a funny woman.

I would be OK with a Superman movie unrelated to the Donner/Reeve series if it wasn't an origin story and just dealt with an established Superman doing his thing. The origin's been done so many times that, frankly, it's not that interesting anymore. If you were to do a totally new take on Superman, the best way to do it would be to have Superman already out there and dealing with new villains and new problems being thrown his way.

That said, the idea of picking up from Superman and Superman II is incredibly risky, and done right could make for a great movie. Especially since there was a lot of wasted potential in that series after Donner got canned. Going back and finally tapping into the potential Lester, the Salkinds, Golan-Globus, and Furie overlooked could yield a very ambitious film.



I'm not concerned right now because those were behind-the-scenes shots, a lot of them clowning around between takes. If she's that goofy on film, then I'll be worried. Until then, I'll take the pics with a grain of salt.

JulianPerez writes:




Well, I'll grant you that, to a point.  But look at it this way:  in the public's mind before 1989, Batman was Adam West and the Batmobile was a customized Lincoln Futura showcar.  It would have been very, very easy to pick up those old threads and weave a new film instead of redesigning everything from the ground up.  You could say, "This is what the public knows, so let's give it to them...the marketing's already been done." But it also would have been a wrong move, if for no other reason than that it would have relegated the '89 film to a continuation, an homage, a copycat.

Donner was in the same spot in 1978.  The George Reeves show had a huge impact on American pop culture and was still airing in syndication around the world.  There must have been a temptation to emulate it.  Yes, you could do it all in bigger fashion, with better effects and a larger scope, but you could keep a lot: a daffy Lois and bumbling Jimmy, a Superman who if not entirely a father figure at least looked old enough to have finished college, a Krypton in the Flash Gordon mold, etc.  Instead we got a lot of changes, not least an icy, barren Krypton and a rocketship that looked like a Christmas ornament.  Oh, and Gene Hackman acting like a third-season celebrity villain on the above-mentioned "Batman" show.

I don't have a problem with certain things being carried over to a new film.  For instance, I doubt anyone will ever top John Williams' theme, so go ahead and use it. But it seems kind of creepy, frankly, that they've cast this Chris Reeve lookalike and they're trying to make a sequel to a pair of movies made before many people in the audience were even born.  
I guess what I'm saying is that the Salkind films have a lot of baggage, and not all of it's good.  I like certain things about those old films, but they are not the "definitive" Superman for me...in fact they have a LOT of problems.  Next year it'll be what...19 years since the last Superman film. As a fan I always hope that the next take will be the perfect one.  Batman fans got a new spin on their hero this year and many of them loved it.  Superman fans?  Well, so far it looks like we're getting a continuation of what went before.  If you happened to like that, you're in luck.  If you've had enough of it, sorry Charlie.  





Well yes, that was a crummy script.  But "new take" doesn't have to equal crap.  You seem to be saying that at least if Singer's faithful to the old films, we know more or less what we're going to get already.  Considering what we almost had to deal with (Jon Peter's de-powered Superman, Nick Cage) I can sympathize.  But if all we can hope for is more of the same, I have to wonder why we should bother going.  And if Singer feels obliged to follow another man's vision, I wonder what's in it for him as an artist.

Superman has been re-interpreted many times already, in cartoons, on TV, in movies and on radio.  All were different, all had similarities, and all were interesting.  I guess I just feel that we're about due for another spin on things.  And from what I've seen so far, what we're getting is another installment in the Salkind series.  A series that, for my money, deserved to end before it did.

Nightwing as usual we're in agreement.

Which why upon viewing Lois & Clark fisrt season on DVD, I went "Ahhhh...."

Deborah Levine's take on a post crisis Superman but faithful to the spirit of Superman.  And boy John Sheas Luthor was the best- sheer unreptant evil. SFX far to middling but even L&C showed how lacking a tease like Smallville is.

Reinterpert, sure. Reinvent, why? Copy - uh oh.

The Adam West fanboy in me is saying, hey, that would be pretty awesome! But I digress.  :D



Not the best example, as the '89 film was of dubious quality, but I see your point nonetheless.



I see your point.



Well, just from what little we know about the movie, it does seem that Singer's offering something new on the grill: Metropolis as a CGI created art deco fairyland. Whatever else about the movie may be true or not, at least Metropolis will look good, or it ought to with all the money they're sinking in. And this would affect other versions of Superman in other media; after the movie, you can't just stick Superman in the middle of a Vancouver, BC or Chicago-looking city and have it be Metropolis; the city will acquire a character it is certain will become the mainstay for future media portrayals.

I don't have as much a problem with people bringing little that is new to the table with regards to Superman, because you don't need to make additions or new perspectives THAT badly; Superman WORKS. I am *not* going to quote "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," because that isn't true when applied to the creative process, which requires innovation constantly. I am however, going to say this: Superman has such a strong central concept and strong plot elements, that with all seriousness, I say that it isn't possible to tell a bad Superman story. It isn't. The only way to really tell a bad Superman story is if you ignore these things - as they did with SUPERMAN III when he became a side character to the Richard Pryor Show.

Incidentally, I always did enjoy SUPERGIRL in a guilty-pleasure sense, right up there with my love of Hammer Caveman movies and Kung Fu flicks (AGAINST THE DRUNKEN CAT PAWS is a choice favorite).

Supergirl had the best flying sequences hands down.

(http://supergirl.astraldream.net/movie-flying.jpg)(http://supergirl.astraldream.net/movie-lake.jpg)

They were shot with prime lenses as opposed to a zoom lens (which is a series of moving glass lens) resulting in a sharper picture.

There's moments of such sheer beauty in that film that they outweigh the crap.
(http://www.propstore.co.uk/images/products/144/supergirl6lrg.jpg)

I've probably said this before elsewhere on these boards, but I always wished they'd taken elements from Supergirl to make a better Superman II.  Specifically, I wish Superman had been trapped in the Phantom Zone for the middle of the film while the villains ran amuck. (kind of like that old mini-series Gene Colan drew).

This would have made for some cool SFX in the Zone sequences, and a more believable reason for Kal's absence.  With due respect to Ms Kidder, it's frankly unbelievable that anyone would give up super-powers to have sex with her, and it's WAY out of character for a guy like Superman.

Also, finding a way out of a supposedly inescapable prison is more satisfying than cheating your way out of a supposedly irreversable depowering process.  Especially when you don't even tell how you did it!

"Supergirl" was no great shakes, but Helen Slater was to die for...perfect casting and a true sweetheart.

Nightwing - if only...sigh...

I think some people are looking at this the wrong way.  I don't think Singer's intention is to make a carbon copy of Donner's film.  This is Singer's vision.  It's just inspired by Donner's.  I don't know whether or not that's a good or a bad thing but it is a way to go.  Even if it was 100% new and fresh there would still be some unhappy fans.

After all this time this is the one that finally got off the ground (no pun intended).  For better or worse this is the one we're going to get.  There is always a risk of a movie being a turkey.  Batman Begins could've stunk but it didn't.  It all depends on who you ask.  If you ask me I'm excited by what I've seen so far but that doesn't mean anything.  I could wind up thinking the movie is terrible.  I just want to see it before I decide.

Just so this doesn't look like a landslide, I'll say I'm not looking forward to it.  Nothing I've seen (limited to still photos and managed behind-the-scenes "scoops") has made me the least bit enthusuastic.  I enjoyed the Donner film as a kid but have a hard time getting worked up about superhero movies now (exceptions: see my list on Julian's "Best Superhero Movie" thread).  My love for the old comics doesn't need a hit movie to justify itself.

Far from being excited, I couldn't be more bored by the whole thing.  Here's hoping that when I eventually see it (I know I will someday, if not in a theatre) it has something to offer.

I'm pretty jazzed about SUPERMAN RETURNS. Brian Singer hasn't let us down before, the casting is sharp and on target, and with the money being poured into it, the CGI, SKY CAPTAIN style art deco Metropolis will probably have to be seen to be believed. The plot sounds fresh: Superman rekindling his love with Lois after she's moved past him. And my God, the music...

Though something tells me that if the kid is Superman's, they won't exactly need a paternity test.  :D

As for the people on newsgroups being dummies - I don't go to most, being bad at working my cumputor web machine thing.

But nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the modern teenage comics fan.

Hard to say.  He was most likely conceived while Superman was powerless, back in Superman II.  If so, would the powers have been passed on?

But the real question is:  Will this have an effect on the comic book continuity - ie, will the comic book Superman and Lois finally have a child?

:s:

And will he speak like a cave-man?

 :wink:

I just realized that they probably will HAVE to now.

God, give me strength.

You can just hear the shriek of triumph issued from the flabby, roosterlike throat of some goateed, Metallica T-shirt wearing mongoloid in Reebok sneakers Mike Carlin just hired as the new Superman writer. Finally, a way to shake the pillars of heaven! To leave MY mark on Superman history!

I hear you saying, "Oh, Julian, your cynicism is unwarranted. There are a great many interesting stories that can be told by Superman having a kid."

Yeah, and there are a great many stories that could be told by Superman getting married. Did they do any of those? Course not. Because the super-marriage, as was the Death of Superman, and the birth of a son would be (and it WILL be a strapping son, I guarantee; misogyny is one of the defining characteristics of the modern comics writer) an event driven story dominated by marketing, and so consequently, there's no way they will be good because they are gimmick-centered tales focused on creating an artificial illusion of change to temporarily drum up sales (and probably stretched for 5 months over 4 Superman Titles) before someone comes to their senses and everything returns, equally unsatisyingly, back to the status quo.

On a lighter note, I guess if Lois does have a Super-Kid, that means Maggin's "Lois is Catholic" theory is proven right long after the fact - no Super-Birth Control.  :D

Kal better powerless if IIRC that Man of Steel, Women of Kleenex essay

OK guys, new forum policy:  please put at least one verb in each of your sentences, so that we know what you're talking about.

:s:

Dude, he's from the future, remember?  Verbs are so 20th century...

Yup, one of Superman's flames having a kid with someone else.  So original in the movies, yup.  You have to go all the way back to Superman III...

<groan>

But that's just it, Bryan Singer says this IS Superman III...
 :wink:


Gosh, didn't Annette O'Toole play Lana?  And now she's on Smallville.  So that kid of hers grew up to be...Clark Kent!??  :shock: