posted
I think that Doc's point is that your average movie-goer will just assume that Lois and Supes got busy at some point, because their minor knowledge of the Superman universe is that Lois Lane is Superman's girlfriend. This knowledge comes from a multitude of sources beyond the Christopher Reeve's movies and they won't remember the specific events of the first 2 Superman movies well enough to try fit this movie into that continuity. In that context, there is not the "super roofie" date rape issue that treating this movie as a sequel to Superman II creates.
I'm not saying that I agree with Doc, just restating his point (and if I screwed it up Doc, I apologize).
I think the ties to the first 2 Reeves movies are admitted (by Singer) and undeniable. Whether the average movie-goer realizes this or not is irrelevant. There is a large population of Superman fans that will remember this, and catch all of the obvious allusions to the original 2 films that are included in this one. If Singer wanted us to treat this as a stand-alone movie, he would not have treated the opening credits the way he did, or include referrences to events that occurred in the first 2 movies. This being the case, Lois Lane should either have been furious, or at the very least, baffled upon learning of her son's powers. It was a fairly major oversight/mistake in the script. That being said, I still think this movie was much better than any of the previous Superman movies, it just had some flaws.
Posts: 748 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But we have to accept what we're given, and that means that the simple fact that Lois isn't baffled or angry means that she does remember having sex with Superman, and thus they must have done it some time when he still had his powers. I just find this surprising for 2 reasons: I thought that the jury was still out on if Superman could be intimate with a woman without killing her, and I can't believe that he would get that intimate with her and not mention that he's Clark Kent... Or maybe she really was baffled but just never had the opportunity to show it. After all, for most of the movie after she sees Jason's powers she's too busy trying to survive a life threatening crisis to sit down and comtemplate the matter.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not having seen the original movies, I was totally confused by the kid. After all, Lois really acted like she thought he was Richard's. But the timing of him being Superman's meant she'd hopped in bed with Richard the moment Sup left town. It just didn't add up for me.
Some mention of her sleeping with Superman but not knowing it would have helped a lot.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I thought the reason she wasn't baffled or angry meant that the script was poorly written...
So we have a choice. We can believe that Superman was intimate with Lois, apparently without adequate protection, and then left her for 5 years without warning. Or we can believe that they did just the once, as seen in the second movie, and that either Kryptonians gestate longer than human babies or Lois and Richard went at it right away and Lois isn't really careful about keeping track of her calendar (this is what I assume we're supposed to believe, as evidenced by the prequel comic that shows us Lois' abrupt romance with Richard). And that Superman left for 5 years without warning.
Reading the novelization now, didn't see where he thought it would be months and got blown off course. This says it took him 2 1/2 years to get there and he knew that. On the other hand, it also has Martha dating again by the time he gets back
I could, grudgingly, accept that Superman was so caught up in searching for his birthland that he abanded everything to go look for it. But he should have been a lot more torn up over the life he lost because he left. A beer with Jimmy and some stalking just ain't enough.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Chris, the stalking was officially creepy. I mean, who stands outside their crush's window and hopes to find out what they think about them without having to speak to them? Middle schoolers, that's who. Seeing a grown man doing it was just sad.
I maintain that Richard is the better man in the movie. He knows his wife (After all, when you live with someone for five years and raise a child together, you're as good as married even if you don't have the offical piece of paper.) his wife was in love with Superman even if she won't admit it. And no one can compete with Superman. But when push comes to shove, Richard sucks it up and goes back into danger to save a man who is a rival for his wife's affection. Now that's doing what's right when you don't want to.
The only thing Marsden could have done to improve that part was to comment on everyone opening the plane door when he was trying to fly. That had to get old fast.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the spying was very disturbing to me too. I can just see Batman checking that off on a pro-con list of 'Devise scheme to destroy superhumans if they go berserk' list Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The novelizations are probably many and varied. The Junior novelization, the children's storybook, the regular novelization. I'll bet a bunch have different versions of the backstory, and choose to leave out different elements of the film.
Of course, the fact that there are this many versions aimed at children that make a hero out of a C grade soap opera ignorant daddy underscores why I'm upset.
The fact that it's Superman . . .
Look, aside from the betrayl of the character's morality that has me pissed, there's also the ridiculous direction this would have to take the series.
If they persue this, we're stuck with another origin story. In this case, the kid's. We're going to be forced to sit through another movie of a kid going, "Wheee!" while he jumps really high and then stares at his hands in amazement. I'm tired of that. Even in this movie, the flashbacks to Clark as a kid jumping around the cornfield were lifted straight out of Spiderman. It's nothing we haven't seen before. For heaven's sake, don't make me sit through it again.
When I go to see a Superman movie, I don't want to see the movie this one set us up for. In fact, I don't even really want to see this movie, where the last twenty minutes takes place in and around a hospital bed.
I want to see the super-tough, morally unambigous superhero put into situations where he has to overcome situations that seem even too tough for him, and having to make the right choice even when all the choices seem just too hard.
The only moment where this movie came close to that was during the scene where Superman flew back into the city that was being destroyed. The anticipation I was feeling as I saw that was incredible. Here was their chance--what does Superman do when he can't save everyone? When the whole world is collapsing around him? Does he save the old? The young? How guilty does he feel about those he cannot save?
Instead, they had him catch a guy, melt some glass, then symbolically save everybody by catching the "whole world" and setting it down. They went for the poster pose, the iconic image, rather than the thrilling, difficult scenes that would demonstrate real heroism.
I want a man who can seemingly do the impossible be given opponents and problems that seem beyond impossible. In some cases, because of the power of his opponent. In some cases, because of the lack of any good way to go. And I want to see him rise above it all to be a hero anyway.
Instead, the sequel's going to be awkward revelations to the kid about who his father is, awkward revelations to Cyclops about who the kid's father is, slow revelations about the nature of the kid's powers, with a bad guy or two thrown in between the overlong soap opera pining.
It's better. Not perfect, but much, much better. Here's some of the highlights.
Superman did, in fact, know he'd be gone that long. We get a scene of his ship flying over the shattered remains of Krypton, seeing destroyed landmarks Jor-El had told him about, and being saddened by the total loss of his original home. Then he starts feeling terrible and realizes that kryptonite is everywhere, he hasd to leave immediately. Important to note here that he almost doesn't realize what's happening in time to save himself, more on that later.
More backstory on Lex and how he met Kitty.
Supes gets back home to find that Martha is dating again and is thinking of moving. More on Superman feeling lost, alone, and homeless.
He gets to Metropolis to find everyone has moved on without him. No real questions about CLark being gone and coming back, no one pays that much attention to him. Also, he doesn't step back into his old job, he's doing obituaries.
Mention is made of the kid being sickly, Lois thinks because he was born prematurely (!) Her thinking that helped a lot with me wondering about her math skills.
A LOT more about Superman feeling like he has no home and doesn't belong anywhere, including his reaction to Lois' prize-winning article. Maybe the world would be better off without him. When he's drinking with Jimmy there's a strong sense that he may not put the suit back on.
The EMP, the plane disaster. He hesitates for a split second, knowing that once he goes the genie's out of the bottle. He still goes, of course.
Clark's explanation to Lois about why someone would leave without saying goodbye is longer, and more touching.
Superman's rooftop visit to Lois is also more wrenching. He is clearly anguished, he knows he shouldn't be doing this, and the offer to fly her around came out of nowhere without him really knowing why he was doing it.
Throughout the book Superman sees how good Richard is for her, and what a good man he is. It doesn't help.
We get more backstory on just about everybody, including more on Jimmy being upset that he hasn't shot a good photo in months (alluded to with the "it's a bird" scene) and that his job is in danger if he doesn't get one, which makes his Superman-holding-the-Planet shot more satisfying.
There is no, repeat no indication, hint, allusion, or wink that Jason might be Superman's child. No flying piano (Lois drops a bookcase on the bad guy instead), no late night visit from Superman. Nothing. I dunno if this is because it was added later, or because Bryan Singer didn't want the secret to get out so he didn't provide the real screenplay to the author. But I like this version better.
It's not just a shockwave that hits Metropolis, it's an earthquake, and a big one. More savings from the caped guy.
Lex does, in fact, create his own Fortress of Solitude on his island (yay, me). Superman even recognizes some of the Kryptonian landmarks forming, making this a weird juxtaposition for him of his old life invading his new one. This allows for more distraction for Superman, who isn't paying attention like he should be. It's also mentioned that he just spent five years in a small capsule, he's still getting his legs back.
He lands on the island, feels weak, and doesn't make the connection. And here I want to point out something that wasn't mentioned but that occurred to me: this Superman, the movie Superman has seen Kryptonite exactly once, when Lex hung it around his neck in the first movie. Before that he had no concept of it, and after it was gone there was no more. Granted that, I could believe that he could encounter it again and not know what was going on.
This time it's not the thugs that beat up Superman, it's Lex, over and over, and that rings more true to me. Lex would want to do it himself.
Superman flying the island out of the atmosphere is more dramatic here. It's mentioned that there are tons of dirt and bedrock underneath, blocking the Kryptonite until chunks of it start falling away and Superman reacts violently. He makes it anyway, but not as apparently calmly as he did in the movie.
The rest is pretty much the same. It's mentioned that the island, dubbed New Krypton, is currently in orbit between Mars and Jupiter and is still growing. Interesting plot point, as that would mean a) our solar system's orbital dynamics have changed, and b) there's a freaking planetsize chunk of Kryptonite out there.
There are more references to Pa Kent, places where Superman realizes that the great destiny heaped on him by Jor-El has to be changed so he can have a life (notice Jor-El's the one that named the place a Fortress of Solitude), and the realization that he's much more human than Kryptonian.
I still have trouble believing he'd vanish without saying goodbye, and there still isn't any military response to Lex's plan, but other than that the book answered a lot of my questions. I dunno how much was in the script and how much Wolfman added -- have to see the DVD's extra scenes -- but this was a superior story in many ways. Too bad it didn't make it to the screen.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the piano scene (and subsequent "superdaddy" related scenes) were last minute additions, that might explain (though not excuse) the problems pointed out earlier.
Posts: 748 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, looks like the movie has made just $163 million so far, putting it way behind the $258 million POTC2 has made so far, and even behind Cars' $200+ million.
So what are everybody's theories as to why it's underperforming?
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just saw this, and to me the biggest problem was that Lex Luthor tossed Superman off his crystal island instead of cutting his head off while he had the chance. I know villains always mess up when they have the superhero, but there seemed less of a rationale than usual here. Also, I thought that Lex Luthor's plot was foiled too soon after it started; I thought Superman was going to go back to Metropolis and have to figure out what to do as Luthor's continent started wiping out coastal regions.
None of the quieter, "serious" scenes between Superman/Clark and Lois did much for me. Also, Kate Bosworth seemed too perky for how I always imagined Lois (though my conception of the Superman story comes entirely from random mentions of it in the culture, so I may be off).
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lex Luthor in Superman Returns is the dumbest super villain ever. Yeah, Lex. Destroy most of the valuable industry and crop production of the U.S. and Mexico and replace it with bare rock that is going to be valuable to exactly whom?
And where is the advanced alien technology he was going to use to fight the rest of the world off with? Maybe they were hiding under Kitty's hats. Hell, this didn't need to be a job for Superman. It could have been a job for a company of Marines. What was going to stop them?
The movie was fun, but the internal logic of the movie was just ridiculous and predictable. I was also annoyed that they didn't develop the god versus mortal aspect more and make it intergral to the movie, rather than just a kind of amusing thought the director tossed in there.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just didn't like how Superman was able to lift an entire island made of kryptonite, all the while having a sliver of the stuff in his side.
I liked this movie a lot. But then I saw it a couple more times, and started re-playing it in my head. The more I notice about the movie, the more I think it failed as a Superman film.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The movie was fun, but the internal logic of the movie was just ridiculous
Yes, this is how I felt. Really enjoyed seeing it, but aspects bothered me afterward. Like Lois never questioning how the baby could be his.
And there wasn't enough Clark in it ... in this one, Superman was his real persona, and Clark was who he hid behind. I always liked it better when Clark was his real personality and Superman was the character he hid behind when he had to show his powers. Because he was raised on Earth, among humans, as Clark; that's would've been the real him, IMO. The "super" aspects would've identified him as "other" and would've been the parts of his identity he would've wanted to develop an alternate personality to "hide".
About Lex Luthor: the part may have been written "dumb", but Kevin Spacey played it SO well. I loved him in that part.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
