So I was watching Superman Returns on DVD and reflecting on how much better it could have been if they'd done this, or if they'd done that and so on and so forth. One thing I decided was that I loved Parker Posey. Another thing was that Kate Bosworth was clearly too young to have both a booming career in journalism and a 5 year old son. Also, her performance was nothing special. It wasn't awful, but nor was it good. Anyway, I was thinking that the casting directors should've reversed these two women's roles. Parker Posey could have done a better job as Lois Lane, and Kate would not have made the film much duller in the role of Kitty, even though Parker made the role hysterical.
So, what do you all think? Could better casting have saved this movie?
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
I agree with you... Parker Posey would have made a fabulous Lois Lane! I wasn't too impressed with Kate either. I loved Kevin Spacey, and I loved Brandon Routh... and of course Parker Posey as well. But that's where it ends for me.
Casting changes may very well have made this a better film... though I haven't really thought about it much in depth. I'm actually going to a friend's house for a "Superman Extravaganza" later today, where we watch the two old ones, and then Superman Returns, all in a row. I'll have to think about it more then! Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
The only thing that could have "saved" that movie was a better script.
I mean, really, the whole Lex Luthor Realty Inc, plotline, besides being a complete rehash of the oringal Reeves/Hackman plot was stupid in the extreme.
Who could possibly believe investors would be clamoring to purchase land that was basically resourceless?
How many millions of years would he have to sit on that investment until it really had any beachfront property?
What kind of return would you get on it once you paid to cart in all your building materials, energy, and fresh water?
Kevin Spacey was great as the criminal mastermind. I thought, at first, that he was going to be a strong reinvention of the Lex Luthor character. It's really too bad they gave him such a stupid criminal master plan. It's like they wanted to move beyond the camp take on the character that Hackman gave, but couldn't get the camp out of the writing.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I have enjoyed Smallville and I liked Reeve's movies, I understand that their was a need to tie the plot too some already told story arc to keep from having to rehash the same beginning but the direction they went in this movie was a bit silly as has been said.
The deadbeat dad aspect, the 'date rape drug' aspect, the lack of 'the American Way' all made it feel more like an attempt to tarnish Superman then make it look like a hero had returned.
Luthor's plot was self defeating, the Fortress of Solitude had less the security then a dropped cell phone.
I really think a Superman movie with Tom Wheling and the cast of Smallville and Smallville as doctrine would be more interesting. They have established many of the other Super Heroes, the cast is established, the movie could literally go anywhere. Maybe like the X-files there could be a movie bridge between two seasons.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
Could you explain the "deadbeat dad aspect" and the "date rape drug" aspect? I'm racking my brain, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Also, I disagree about the Fortress of Solitude not having any security. It's in friggin Antarctica. How much more secure can you get?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
GForce, Superman got Lois pregnant when they were self-married, then took away her memory, so she is left having no idea how she got pregnant. He didn't know it either, when he went away. What must she conclude when she realizes her son has super powers? There could only be one father. But she doesn't remember. What might she reasonably conclude?
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
Ah, I see, it sort of makes sense now. It's been a while since I've seen Superman 2. However, when Lois was visiting Superman in the hospital in "Returns", she whispered something into his ear that we weren't allowed to hear. During this, the camera focused on her kid, whatever his name was, giving me the impression that she was telling him that it was his son. This was further strengthened when Clark flew into his son's room and said all that BS the father becoming the son and the son becoming the father (IMO a poorly written line that somehow sounds cliche without actually making any sense). SOOO, the conclusion is that even if Lois wasn't sure if Superman was the boy's father, she was not completely, 100% certain he wasn't either, as evidenced by her reaction to Lex Luther's questioning of the boy's paternity. Add in the Freudian slip ("I've done Superman!"), and I think there's a pretty strong case that they got freaky at least once, and she remembered it. She also didn't seem completely horrified when she found out for sure, which would probably be the natural reaction if what you're saying was true.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Clark flew into his son's room and said all that BS the father becoming the son and the son becoming the father (IMO a poorly written line that somehow sounds cliche without actually making any sense)
It's what Jor-El said at the beginning of the first Superman. Superman Returns only makes sense in the context of the first two movies.
quote: I think there's a pretty strong case that they got freaky at least once, and she remembered it.
I agree with GForce. I think the writers of this movie just chose to ignore that Lois forgot she'd had sex with Superman. Because in Superman Returns, Lois certainly knows who the father is.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Would Superman have sex with Lois without letting her know he's also Clark? I don't think so. Sure Lois would logically conclude that Superman is the father, but if she doesn't remember having sex with him, then isn't it reasonable that she should have some questions and possibly freak out at the possibility that Supes played with her memory and maybe even raped her. I don't think that anyone would be happy to discover that they got pregnant during a sexual encounter they don't remember and that someone has played with their memories. And isn't it reasonable that after having unprotected sex, that Supes wouldn't use his supervision to at least confirm that he didn't impregnate Lois. If not immediately after the encounter, at least efore he goes on an extended trip, even if he thought the trip would have been for just a few months? My conclusion: the screen writers inexpecably failed to think this through. I've read a several interviews with Singer and the screen writers and none of them have addressed this issue. At mimimum, I wish they would at say that it will be addressed in the next movie.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
It is strange but the novelization of the movie leaves this whole aspect out! No Super kid! So it means that this aspect was probably done both ways and then left in at a late date. It means to me that a lot thought went into this aspect and it was decided that it would be put in...to what end? Moral ambiguity is the only reason I can think of.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I was walking by the toy department at Wal-Mart today and saw some two -and-a-half feet tall Superman figures, and it hit me, when I saw the movie photo on the box, how much better, how much more the toy Superman looked like Superman than the actor in the movie. And I thought about how every time he was acting as Superman, I didn't buy him because he seemed like such a little wimp to me. When I watched the movie, I was struck again and again by what an amazing job the guy did of channeling Christopher Reeves's Clark Kent (a shame, I think, because I think Reeves's Clark Kent was one of the weaker points of the movies). I watched all four Reeves movies the week before seeing the new one, and this kid they got to play Superman had all his little mannerisms down perfectly. It was eerie, even.
But in the end, they got someone who could do a hell of a Clark Kent impersonation, but not, unfortunately, a good Superman impersonation.
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
What are you all talking about? I'm pretty sure Brian Singer was never allowed to make a Superman movie, and there was certainly never a movie called Superman Returns.
::Whistles Contentedly::
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by GForce: So I was watching Superman Returns on DVD and reflecting on how much better it could have been if they'd done this, or if they'd done that and so on and so forth. One thing I decided was that I loved Parker Posey. Another thing was that Kate Bosworth was clearly too young to have both a booming career in journalism and a 5 year old son. Also, her performance was nothing special. It wasn't awful, but nor was it good. Anyway, I was thinking that the casting directors should've reversed these two women's roles. Parker Posey could have done a better job as Lois Lane, and Kate would not have made the film much duller in the role of Kitty, even though Parker made the role hysterical.
So, what do you all think? Could better casting have saved this movie?
Every time I looked at Kate Bosworth, I thought of her in Young Americans. It was distracting.
The problem with the movie was that there wasn't enough characterization. Superman was incredibly blah. Boring and mopey. And frankly, if I want to see a reworked Jesus story, I can go and watch ET.
Lisa
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I watched all four Reeves movies the week before seeing the new one, and this kid they got to play Superman had all his little mannerisms down perfectly. It was eerie, even.
Um... "four"? I think you're mistaken. There were only two.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
IMDB seems to think Christopher Reeves made four movies with the word "Superman" in the title.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)