Kevin's Watch

Why can't they find a red-headed actor to play Jimmy Olsen?

I don't know - this order might be just as good. My daughter hated Supes 'till I took her to this one. (In fact, I got to tease her on the way out of the theater: "But you don't li-i-ike Superman. He's too pe-e-erfect to be interesting.") I assumed that she was reacting to Roush's performance the way I was - "Damn! This kid is doing the Reeve version and kicking butt at it. Who knew?"

Turns out, she's never watched the older movies - but now she wants to.

K. We'll get the DVDs.

But we can skip Superman III and Superman IV?

I wish I had skipped III and IV, so yeah, give them a miss.

Superman wasn't even on world when those were made. Even if taste intellect and all that's holy didn't require you to miss those two, continuity would.

Yeah!

Just saw it yesterday and my biggest complaint was with the casting of Parker Posey.....what a waste of talent.......couldn't they have found someone else to play that role......

Watched Superman: The Movie to get into the spirit of things. Hearing John Williams's majestic score again gave me goosebumps. I think it's one of his greatest film scores. In fact, the original soundtrack album made a bigger impression on me than the movie itself, because I heard the music first. As a kid, I never actually saw the movie at theatres, just on TV - and that was after having seen Superman II at theatres. I loved how its title sequence so neatly "retold" the events of the first film. I think Superman II was the second-most exciting movie experience for me back in '81, right behind Raiders of the Lost Ark - speaking of another classic John Williams score. But I ramble...

Will be seeing Superman Returns tomorrow.

Menolly wrote:K. We'll get the DVDs.

But we can skip Superman III and Superman IV?

I still think there is a good movie lurking somewhere in Superman III. I think it's worth a rental at least. Not to spoil anything for you, Menolly, but it does have a freaky junkyard fight scene that genuinely scared me as a kid. In my opinion it's still darker and more violent than anything I've seen in today's CGI-happy superhero films, with the exception of Batman Begins. But aside from that, I think there is a sweet charm about the third Superman film, largely due to Richard Pryor's good guy Gus and Annette O'Toole as Lana Lang. (She's now in the TV series Smallville, by the way.)

Superman IV is only scary in its sheer awfulness. One of the worst movies I ever sat through.

Just saw it...Loved it. Singer has these movies down pat. Routh was better than Reeves even though the part really doesn't require much heavy lifting (irony intended)!

This was SUPERMAN!

Just came back from the movie. I thought it was okay, but the original Richard Donner film remains superior. I can now say, I still think Donner has captured the Superman mythos on film better than anyone else. Superman Returns is light years ahead in special FX, of course, but story-wise, I thought the 1978 Superman was more compelling. Donner's movie flowed much better. It had a genuinely epic quality, something that I don't quite sense in the new movie. Singer's opus is a series of interesting scenes stitched together, but they don't add up to a great whole in my mind. Again, I miss the grand sweep of Donner's film - maybe it just felt more "heroic."

I also think Singer may have gone too far in paying homage to the '78 movie, so much so that he's in danger of parodying both the original film and his own. For example, the overly familiar-looking title sequence - lifted straight off the original - only served to jar me, instead of instilling any sense of awe. In the original film, imagery and music together formed a noble overture to the proceedings. But here in the new movie, that awesome title sequence has been "down-sized" into a perfunctory statement. It feels like an undignified rush, which all the snazzy background CGI can't disguise. It may be that I'm being silly with this. The 1978 film has its own glaring flaws (mainly in the FX), but I still revere it.

Brandon Routh does a classy job as both Clark and Superman, but "better" than Chris Reeve? I don't think that's fair to either actor. I prefer to say that now we've seen two excellent Superman actors on film. Costume-wise, I still think of Chris Reeve's as the "classic" one, but I also like Routh's rubbery, tactile suit. (Are they trying to make Batman jealous?)

I don't have any real problem with Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, except that she and Routh didn't exactly light up the screen for me as a couple. It makes me appreciate even more the chemistry that existed between Margot Kidder and Chris Reeve.

I enjoyed Kevin Spacey as Luthor. Fans seem distinctly divided on this: you either hate the Gene Hackman-style jocular Luthor that Spacey perpetuates, or you think it's Luthor played to perfection. Well, you know which camp I fall into. The real question for me remains: why does he surround himself with nincompoops?

dlbpharmd gave this film 2.5 out of 5. I'll give it 3.5 to applaud the tremendous effort the film represents. Singer and company were trying their best to honor what had gone before. I'll give them that.

Superman? More like super-boring. YAWN. There's very little about CK, and what there is is fluff. Lois has no butt (what, was she 18 when he left?) and no kick butt attitude. Superman is way too godlike (on a couple levels), even for Superman. And Lex... I just didn't see any real evil geniusness. Sad, considering Spacey still carried the movie. Totally agreed on Parker Posey, MM.

Ok, and Jorel's been dead for thousands of years by the time Kal hears from him. Yet it only takes 5 years to get to Krypton and back? And which weighs more, an island or a space shuttle?

Anyone notice the Bud Lite product placement?

Man, I just don't get it. I loved Singer's treatment. I had no idea that he was going to actually use I and II as the "prequels" to this one, and the John Williams and titleing were my first clue - my first thought was, "Oh man, don't fuck this up..." and it was so much fun watching as he didn't!

The only part that felt unconnected to the story, for me, was the machinegun guy on the roof, and that was such a classy homage to the old Fleischer cartoons that I really didn't mind.

That said, physics have never been an easy hurdle for Supes' writers to cross. I never even notice it - at least not any more than I do the constant shifts in scale in old Godzilla movies.

3.5 out of four stars. (Plus a bonus star for not going "camp" with the old Reeve material.)

*SPOILER WARNING*

Another negative opinion...

A friend who just saw the movie emailed me: he thought it stunk. (Ok, he used the word "turd.") He asked some good questions that had gone through my head, too, but I didn't voice them. I'll post them here, along with some of his replies:

Superman needs Earth scientists to find Krypton? Pardon me but he has the collected info of 28 galaxies or so, I bet he could find out where it was on his own.

-This really bothered me, too. Hello, doesn't Superman have a friggin' Encyclopedia Galactica at his disposal? He ought to have charts for star systems that lie way outside the knowledge of Earth scientists.

Why does Superman crash land his spaceship - wasn't he worried about the goverment tracking him/the impact to the Kent farm?

-A question relevant today, what with all the satellites up there tracking just about every inch of the globe.

Why was Superman so tired when he crashed? Did he run out of food on his trip? Did he fall asleep at the wheel and crash? DUI maybe?

- I never quite understood why he was so weak either. When he first arrived as a toddler emerging from his ship, he seemed pretty alert to me (going by the 1978 movie).

How does Lex just walk into the Fortress of Solitude? How does Lex just activate the crystal display? Do penguins accidently set it off every now and then too?

- Okay, this is a direct follow-up to the events of Superman II, but is that an excuse for lazy writing? It seems that, at least in the movies, the Fortress has basically nonexistent security measures. Maybe Supes should think about hiring 24-hour service from one of those security companies seen on infomercials.

How does Jor-El just happen to blab everything to Lex - doesn't he have some type of voice/gene recognition security?

- See above. Nonexistent security. Even Microsoft Windows can claim better security!

The scale of the crystal fragment compared to the larger fragment does not jive - a small piece creates a mass the size of a house, a larger piece creates a continent?

-I'm not as bothered about this question as my friend is, but it's a good question nonetheless.

Superman spying on Lois in her house - since when did Superman become a stalker? How do the police enforce that restraining order?

- Heh. With great power comes...great opportunities to play peeping tom!

If that crystal continent was combined with kryptonite, Superman should not have been able to fly anywhere near it without feelings its effects.
There is no way he could have lifted that kryptonite/crystal continent - he should have been too weak and a blast of the sun is a lame story device to counter it.

-By this point in the story, the movie had lost much of my interest, anyway...but it's still a worthwhile point my friend makes.

So Lois Lane, the tramp, has been lying to her son and Cyclops about the kid being his. Nice. She's a gem.
So Superman has a son - does he pay child support, what kind of visits goes he get?

-Maybe it's because this friend of mine is a lawyer that he rants along these lines.

Like I said to him, it's not a good sign for a superhero flick when the viewer ends up spending more time asking "why?" than whispering "wow!"

I also watched Superman the Movie before heading out to see Superman returns. I took my daughter (Prorider 514). She hadn't watched any of the Superman films completely so she got a crash course before leaving for the theater. On the way I filled in the events of Superman II. We both left the theater talking about it. She's now a fan. I really enjoyed Superman Returns. I think I may have "gotten" what Singer was trying to do right from the beginng and totally bought it. I've always been a die hard Superman the Movie fan. I watched it at the theater in 78 and was blown away. That original film will always be my favorite. Superman Returns delivered a different kind of thrill that my adult mind found satisfying without the need to pick at the special effects or acting or casting choices (I never liked Margot Kidder as Lois Lane). The Cummins household genuinely enjoyed Superman Returns.

Not definitive responses, but some possibilities:

Matrixman wrote:

Superman needs Earth scientists to find Krypton? Pardon me but he has the collected info of 28 galaxies or so, I bet he could find out where it was on his own.

-This really bothered me, too. Hello, doesn't Superman have a friggin' Encyclopedia Galactica at his disposal? He ought to have charts for star systems that lie way outside the knowledge of Earth scientists.

I don't imagine it was a matter of knowing where to look. More likely, he never bothered going, since he thought Krypton was rubble. But if someone even thinks there was something in the telescope for a moment one day... Well, I know I'd have gone to check, even if the chances weren't good. The chance to find out you're not the last?

Matrixman wrote:

The scale of the crystal fragment compared to the larger fragment does not jive - a small piece creates a mass the size of a house, a larger piece creates a continent?

-I'm not as bothered about this question as my friend is, but it's a good question nonetheless.

The small piece was a very, extremely small piece. And it wasn't inside green kryptonite.

Matrixman wrote:

Superman spying on Lois in her house - since when did Superman become a stalker? How do the police enforce that restraining order?

- Heh. With great power comes...great opportunities to play peeping tom!

Well your friend's a better man than I am, Gunga Din. I know darned well I'd be peeping from time to time. And it wouldn't even be because of the woman I gave up my powers to marry who now has a son with someone else. The fact that that's the only time we see him peep at anyone, as opposed to checking into every women's dressing room, says quite a lot for Superman, imo.

Matrixman wrote:

If that crystal continent was combined with kryptonite, Superman should not have been able to fly anywhere near it without feelings its effects.
There is no way he could have lifted that kryptonite/crystal continent - he should have been too weak and a blast of the sun is a lame story device to counter it.

-By this point in the story, the movie had lost much of my interest, anyway...but it's still a worthwhile point my friend makes.

A blast of the sun is very much in keeping with the Superman mythos. The crystal continent was not pure green kryptonite, it only incorporated gk's properties to some degree. There's nothing wrong with saying a massive dose of the sun charges Superman's cells enough to allow him to do what he did. It didn't make him immune, after all. He struggled immensely to lift a mass that, had it been normal rock, he could have done with one finger, and he came as close to dying as possible.

Matrixman wrote:

So Lois Lane, the tramp, has been lying to her son and Cyclops about the kid being his. Nice. She's a gem.
So Superman has a son - does he pay child support, what kind of visits goes he get?

-Maybe it's because this friend of mine is a lawyer that he rants along these lines.

That was Cyclops?? Wow, I had no idea. The two eyes threw me. Looks more like a Bicyclops. (Thanks, Ringo. )

Anyway, your friend can be upset by Lois' behavior, but I'd expect a lawyer to know that this has happened about a bajillion times in earth's history.

Matrixman wrote:Like I said to him, it's not a good sign for a superhero flick when the viewer ends up spending more time asking "why?" than whispering "wow!"

Oh, I don't know. I've asked quite a few "why"s in the TC forum.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm probably needlessly nitpicking over Superman Returns. But Trekkers nitpick over the tiniest details of Star Trek all the time. It's what fans do, and it's our right, dammit. (So maybe I should've been more diplomatic about my sentiments over Peter Jackson's King Kong, since I was never really a Kong fan anyway.)

If my friend and I are bitching over the points about Superman Returns, we're bitching because those points don't ring true to us, and distract us from what we should have been doing: suspending our disbelief and getting caught up in the action. Granted, maybe those like my friend and I just don't "get" Bryan Singer's vision of Superman, so all we see are the faults. Whereas, others like you, aTOMiC, Brinn, and Plissken do connect with Singer. Hey, I'm glad you people enjoyed the movie! Obviously, it rang true for you.

I don't claim to be any expert on the Superman mythos (my friend is more knowledgeable). What all my complaining means is that I just happen to agree more with Richard Donner's "verisimilitude" than with Bryan Singer's when it comes to Superman.

Fist and Faith wrote:I don't imagine it was a matter of knowing where to look. More likely, he never bothered going, since he thought Krypton was rubble. But if someone even thinks there was something in the telescope for a moment one day... Well, I know I'd have gone to check, even if the chances weren't good. The chance to find out you're not the last?

All right, I'll concede (if my friend won't) that I may have completely misunderstood the situation.

Well your friend's a better man than I am, Gunga Din. I know darned well I'd be peeping from time to time. And it wouldn't even be because of the woman I gave up my powers to marry who now has a son with someone else. The fact that that's the only time we see him peep at anyone, as opposed to checking into every women's dressing room, says quite a lot for Superman, imo.

Point acknowledged. I think it's the righteous Rorschach-wacko-bastard in me expecting my heroes to hold to some impossible moral standard.

Oh, I don't know. I've asked quite a few "why"s in the TC forum.

Well, when I ask "why" questions about TC, it's more in the spirit of, "Wow, I wonder why Vain did that..."

With Superman Returns, it's more like: "Aargh...why is that so lame?"

Hey, it's all good!! Like I said, I'm just offering possibilities. It's just a movie. Heck, I don't even take offense at Malik's "mess of a book" about Neverness; a book that means a lot to me. Neither was created by me, and neither is about me.

And, if you recall, I didn't think much of Kong either.

I saw the movie saturday with the kids, and really liked it. Of course, I'm no Canadien lawyer.....tho I do think Rush is the best band ever.

Saw it on saturday. Thought it was great. Not keen on Bosworth though.

Yes, there were some plot holes, but not nearly as many as there might have been. And I think the way Superman conducted himself was much more the way I imagine he would.

Concerning logic problems with the movie: I think people are grousing over technicalities when they should appreciate the film's spirit, which I think captured the Superman mythos in spades. I mean, it's a movie; how often are they really logical?

For instance:

Matrixman wrote:

Why was Superman so tired when he crashed? Did he run out of food on his trip? Did he fall asleep at the wheel and crash? DUI maybe?

- I never quite understood why he was so weak either. When he first arrived as a toddler emerging from his ship, he seemed pretty alert to me (going by the 1978 movie).

A film always goes for blood-and-guts drama before logicality. Yeah, I suppose the most logical thing for Superman to do is walk forward from the crash, completely unscathed and aware. But that just doesn't pack the emotional wallop of a tired, spent Superman leaning on his mother Clark. You get Ms. Clark's concern and Superman's love for her intertwined in one deft move. It's also a big moment, a big event--returning to earth after five years. Just walking away from the burning refuse would subvert that feeling.

Logic is just one element that can or cannot be used for cinematic greatness; it's not the holy key and door.

Just remember: it's a movie about a man who wears underwear over his pants and flies.