CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Superman.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Superman. - Page 3

post #101 of 166
Yeah well you can't blame Donner for that.
That scene makes no sense, though. But neither does the Lester fire pit thing.
post #102 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark View Post
When i was a kid I loved Hackman's Luthor more than the boring angry comicbook Luthor. But he's rarely ever evil. His best villainy moment is the shrug he gives when Tessmacher tells him the missle is going to blow up her mom.
Wrong answer.

Quote:
Superman: Is that how a warped brain like yours gets its kicks? By planning the death of innocent people?

Lex Luthor: No. By causing the death of innocent people.
Right answer.
post #103 of 166
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Luthor is great in Superman. Hackman does a great job with the comedy, but most impressive is his ability to have the character represent an actual threat in the final act after all of that.
post #104 of 166
Yes, but did Hackman's Luthor get to wear a purple and green battle suit? No? I rest my case.

I think Superman Returns works very well as a grad school dissertation, but fails utterly as a movie. It's a fascinating dissection, imo, of Superman's vanity. There are several moments (when he steps off the plane, when he arrives in the Daily Planet newsroom and sees all the TV) when he revels in the adoration of his fans. All of his heroic deeds are basically him showing off. Like when he faces down the bank robber with the gatling gun: of course we, and he, knows he's not going to get hurt. He's just pissed that Lois has rejected him and is looking for some acknowledgment and attention.

Meanwhile, we are given examples of real heroism in the form of Lois and Richard White. Lois doing actual reporting and standing up to Luthor, and Richard risking his life to save Lois and her son. Superman's character arc actually seems to come from him learning from Lois and Richard's example: after he's been stabbed with the Kryptonite and decides to jump out of the plane, there is indeed a chance he can die. He's risking his life, and doing so away from the public eye.

I like, as well, how when he throws the island out into space, he's (basically) throwing a chunk of Krypton away. He's rejecting his old home (after chasing after it at the beginning of the movie) and embracing his new (hence the whole speech to his son at the end).

Again, interesting as a term paper, but boring as hell when stretched out over 2 1/2 hours. Anyone remember those rumors that Singer had tried to get Jude Law to play General Zod? How would that have worked? Luthor would have broken him out of prison and restored his powers some how?
post #105 of 166
As a proud Superman Returns apologist/fan...

I've often speculated that if that same story had been written as a comic/graphic novel or something, a lot of people would've praised the very things they hate about the film.

I've never heard someone (granted, I don't get into or follow debates about this, but still...) talk about a newer Superman book and say "meh, this needs more ACTION! More 'Superman smash!'" I think people would be inclined to say "yeah, I've seen enough splash pages of Superman doing some unbelievable fighting, etc., give me an interesting personality/character angle I haven't seen before."
post #106 of 166
Well, that's the thing, Geoff Johns told essentially the same story in the One Year Later story "Up, Up, and Away". After losing his powers post-Infinite Crisis, Superman has to learn how to be Clark Kent again, and then learn how to be Superman again. Luthor, meanwhile, gets ahold of a piece Kyptonian crystal, and uses it to creates armor and weapons. Big fights ensue, including an intense fist fight between Luthor and a depowered Supes at the end.

Johns even did the superkid better with the Chris Kent/Lor-Zod storyline.
post #107 of 166
About a few weeks back, I did combine both The Donner Cut and the Lester Cut. Got to say, it was pretty fun.
post #108 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
Yes, but did Hackman's Luthor get to wear a purple and green battle suit? No? I rest my case.

I think Superman Returns works very well as a grad school dissertation, but fails utterly as a movie. It's a fascinating dissection, imo, of Superman's vanity. There are several moments (when he steps off the plane, when he arrives in the Daily Planet newsroom and sees all the TV) when he revels in the adoration of his fans. All of his heroic deeds are basically him showing off. Like when he faces down the bank robber with the gatling gun: of course we, and he, knows he's not going to get hurt. He's just pissed that Lois has rejected him and is looking for some acknowledgment and attention.

Meanwhile, we are given examples of real heroism in the form of Lois and Richard White. Lois doing actual reporting and standing up to Luthor, and Richard risking his life to save Lois and her son. Superman's character arc actually seems to come from him learning from Lois and Richard's example: after he's been stabbed with the Kryptonite and decides to jump out of the plane, there is indeed a chance he can die. He's risking his life, and doing so away from the public eye.

I like, as well, how when he throws the island out into space, he's (basically) throwing a chunk of Krypton away. He's rejecting his old home (after chasing after it at the beginning of the movie) and embracing his new (hence the whole speech to his son at the end).
And, yeah, thats pretty much every reason I still love the film in a nutshell. Again, as someone who's utterly bored by this character 90% of the time (I maintain the 90s Animated Series is still the only example of someone getting it right past 1980), this is the only truly fascinating territory anyone's taken with this character: the relationship between savior, humanity, and the flock in the modern age.

Also, not nearly enough post-hype praise has been sent Kevin Spacey's way. I still love his humbled, prison-tempered Luthor quite a bit.
post #109 of 166
Spacey certainly had his moments. The Prometheus scene comes to mind. This particular moment reminded me of Rosenbaum's interpretation.
post #110 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAIRUS View Post
About a few weeks back, I did combine both The Donner Cut and the Lester Cut. Got to say, it was pretty fun.
The broadcast version (I guess it could be called the Salkind Cut) has some priceless stuff that isn't in either of those.
post #111 of 166
Oh, and as hammy as a lot of the theatrical release of Superman II is, it's not 1/10th the abomination that the Richard Donner cut (that was released on DVD) is.

Frankenstein is right. I can't believe they charge people money to own that thing. They should just hand it out on street corners.
post #112 of 166
Obviously the "Donner Cut" has the disadvantage of being a fan cut of a movie that was never finished.
post #113 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadew1 View Post
Obviously the "Donner Cut" has the disadvantage of being a fan cut of a movie that was never finished.
Oh, I know. I just wish they would've been a little more forthcoming about how unfinished it is. I should've known better, but my god, was I disappointed when I popped that thing in after buying it.

It's interesting getting to see some of the rough ideas that Donner favored, but it's not something you can sit down and watch as a "movie."
post #114 of 166
It's basically a really good special feature.
post #115 of 166
Apart from a few slapsticky elements that should have been cut, 'Superman II' is an excellent film. I loved it in the theaters and I loved it when I saw it again a few years ago. Would a COMPLETED Richard Donner version be a good film? Sure, but I don't think that it would necessarily be better than what we got.
post #116 of 166
No I think after seeing the first SUPERMAN and everything he shot for SUPERMAN II, you have to give Donner the benefit of the doubt. His finished SUPERMAN II would have better.
post #117 of 166
Donner was royally fucked by the Salkinds. They basically tried to get two movies for the price of one out of him. Even after the first movie was a huge hit they didn't want to pay him his due to finish the second. His version, finished under the proper conditions, would definitely have been better.
Unless he took out the "step outside" line...
post #118 of 166
It'll be one the great "What if...?" mysteries amongst us nerds. We can never truly know how Superman II would have turned out had Donner not been shit-canned. They had to write a new ending, finish up Zod & Co. taking over the world, etc.

Hell according to them, they were going to get Hackman and Brando back in for more stuff and what not.
post #119 of 166
One positive thing the "Donner cut" does is debunk the prevailing notion that all the stupid/silly stuff came from Lester. Unless you also subscribe to the rumor that Lester shot quite a bit of the first film as well.

But it's a terrible assemblage. It deletes entire sequences and important plot information purely for the crime of being Lester footage, and makes no narrative sense as a result. An 'outtakes only' compilation like the one on the Blade Runner box set would have been much preferable.
post #120 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
One positive thing the "Donner cut" does is debunk the prevailing notion that all the stupid/silly stuff came from Lester. Unless you also subscribe to the rumor that Lester shot quite a bit of the first film as well.
"Whose the writer?"
"Tom Mankiewicz."
"Then it's gonna be shit."


Sean Connery giving career-advice to Reeve while the first two films were being shot. Especially funny after hearing Mankiewicz talking about how Connery loved the Diamonds Are Forever script.
post #121 of 166
I'm going to make the perfect cut of Superman II, and watch it along with the first movie, Ladyhawke and the Goonies. You're all welcome to come to my Donner Party. There will be plenty of food.
post #122 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
I'm going to make the perfect cut of Superman II, and watch it along with the first movie, Ladyhawke and the Goonies. You're all welcome to come to my Donner Party. There will be plenty of food.
Thank you for that...my Friday has been shitty so far.
post #123 of 166
Figured it was time to revive this thread with all the Superman discussion. Anyone rewatched some of the older films lately? I just finished SUPERMAN III. I enjoy it, but on an absurdest level. It's such a wrong path to take yet they did it anyway for some fucking reason. Also this song is one of my guilty pleasures.



Can't say I understand why this particular song was written for Superman. Superman during his superdick phase fucked a blonde, but he we don't see him get with any red heads or "cool brunettes", at least we don't know for sure. Gotta love that Giorgio Moroder, although his own rendition of the Superman theme is.... AWFUL. So awful, I can't blame the Salkinds for not using his rendition in the film.
post #124 of 166

Mr.Stockslivevan, I recently watched...Superman The Movie and Superman II.  I think that they...Perfectly capture Superman of the...Late 30's to the Christopher Reeve films!  I never liked...Otis.  I thought Valerie Perrine was...Hilarious as Miss Tessmacher though.  Hackman was excellent as Lex Luthor, and his plan with the missiles in Superman, and the attempt to interest General Zod in making him...Lex Luthor Governor of Australia a humorous concept.  My favorite Luthor though was the...Superfriends Version.  I would...Love to see...The Leigon of Doom!  To me, Christopher Reeve is the...Best Superman for the...Classic interpretation of the character.  Margot Kidder is...Perfect as Lois.  She plays...Miss Lane, like a hard bitten, seasoned journalist that is...Unflappable, unless in the prescence of...Superman.  He really takes her breath away.  I think it is...Super as they meet as she is...Falling off the  Daily News building.  I think it is amazing that the film was able to shoot in NYC during the...Blackout of 1977.  The entire city was nearly...Powerless, and Donner and co were...Still able to shoot.  The John Williams score is...Breathtaking!  These...2 films never get old for me.  Superman III and IV, join...Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, Elektra, Return of Swamp Thing (Love the...original), and Iron Man 3 on the...Bottom of the Superhero Film Sea!

post #125 of 166
I just finished something I've been aching to do ever since the Donner Cut of II came out: I finally made my own fan edit. Never actually finished one for myself before, so it was interesting to see the film play out the way I edited it. I basically made a hybrid of the two versions. I keep a lot of the Donner stuff in, but reinsert key scenes from the Lester film that focus on Lois and Superman. Basically a lot of the Niagara Falls and fortress footage. I even kept some of the Lester versions of the Donner footage, notably the moon sequence because I preferred the effective use of Ken Thorne's arrangement over Michael Thau's awful choice of "tracked" music from Williams that didn't fit the tone. Kept the opening with Lois jumping out the window, thus not reinserting her Niagara falls jump. I also kept many of the footage in that midwestern town, because as goofy as they are they built up to the army attack. In the Donner Cut, we just immediately jump to the news crew covering the villains, despite the fact that we didn't see the villains do anything by that point. The biggest change I've made was the ending. Over the choice of either going with the memory kiss or spinning the world around, I decided to do neither version. Lois gets to keep her memory of the events and the last we see of her is when she watches Superman leave her penthouse, in tears "there he goes Kiddo, up up and away." Kind of bittersweet but in my own perfect SUPERMAN III Lois would know Clark's secret, and that could have had a lot of potential with them trying to move on despite the elephant in the room. But just to keep things on an upbeat mood, I kept the diner scene at the end and of course Superman delivering the new roof with the American flag to the President.

Still, I don't think I'm quite finished. It's a nice rough cut for me, but I feel with a few more tweaking I might be totally satisfied. I just need the right software that I can use to add dinosaurs and turn guns into walkie-talkies.
post #126 of 166

Which way are you going with Supes and Lois at the Fortress? I still prefer the Lester version, with its echoes of Greek mythology and its premise of pre-emptive sacrifice. There's something awfully petty about the Donner version there: "Wait, you're having sex now? Sorry, gotta give up the powers. Them's the RULES." And aside from the inspired image of Lois strolling about in the Supershirt she comes off looking like the one who's ruining things.

post #127 of 166

Yeah, it always made sense to me, by way of "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" that Superman was giving up his powers so that, specifically, sex could be possible. I thought that added a nice bit of concrete to what would otherwise be an abstract argument about not being able to love and commit because of duty and responsibility. Also made Supes all that more of a jerk, which makes his repentance at the end all the stronger.

 

Your edit sounds pretty cool, Stocks. 

post #128 of 166
I never believed in the "woman of Kleenex" thing so it never factored into my edit, and having seen the Lester version many times I don't see that as being his reason for giving up his powers. In both versions it's clear that both the mother and father enforce it on Superman, he never asks for his powers to be taken away. He says he wants to give up his role as protector so he could focus on his life with Lois and then both say "fine, if you intend to live as one of them then you must become one of them". It's only that he immediately goes to bed with her after the power draining in the Lester version that seemed to have fueled the whole "he did it for sex" thing. For what it's worth though, in my edit he does have sex after the power drain, however I kept that in place because I liked how it worked narratively. Throughout the film as he gets closer with Lois, things get worse with Zod taking over the world. By the time he sleeps with Lois, Zod makes the President of the United States bow before him.
post #129 of 166

The post below is a personal reflection on Superman who keeps popping into my life since I was a kid. If the post is too long just stop reading when you lose interest.-Ron Price, Australia

----------------------------------

 

SUPERMAN: SOME PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

 

He Keeps Popping Into My Life

 

Part 1:

 

 

Man of Steel was released to the general public on 14 June 14 2013.  I saw 5 minutes of the film nearly two years later thanks to my son who taped the movie for my wife. The latest actor to don the blue tights and big red S was Henry Cavill. The movie's director was Zack Snyder of Watchmen and 300 fame. This $170 million movie was produced by Christopher Nolan, the man behind the hit Batman trilogy. The movie was an attempt to reboot the franchise of one of the most popular heroes in the comic book canon. I leave it to readers with the interest to find out about the plot, the characters, the development, the reception, and much else. Wikipedia has an excellent overview of this action film.

 

My last contact with the superman-movie-world was a little more than a year ago in early February 2014. I watched some of the 2006 movie Superman Returns one evening in mid-summer in Australia with Valentine's Day just around the corner. Watching the movie gave me a brief visit into fantasy-land, and the experience of some personal nostalgia.  I had watched some of this same TV film nearly four years before on 19 June 2010, so my notes informed me.  I decided to write this prose-poem providing a personal perspective on this superhero who keeps popping back into my life because I have a TV and popular culture is now firmly embedded in my life.

 

Part 1.1:

 

Superman is a fictional character, a superhero that appeared in comic books first published in the 1930s by DC Comics.  Superman is now considered, and has been for decades, an American cultural icon, and that means, of course, that his image has acquired an immense popularity.

Superman first appeared in a short story entitled: "The Reign of the Superman" in 1932.  In that same year, in July,  a dozen years before I was even born, the Heroic Age of the Baha'i Faith was closed with the passing of Bahiyyih Khanum, the daughter of the Founder of the Baha'i Faith.

 

According to Bahá’ís, every dispensation has one particular holy woman or "immortal heroine".  In the time of Jesus it was the Virgin Mary, the time of Muhammad it was his daughter Fatima Zahra, and during the Báb’s dispensation it was Táhirih.  Bahá’ís believe that Bahíyyih Khánum is the outstanding heroine of the Bahá’í dispensation.  This, of course, has nothing to do with Superman.  But the syncronicity of Superman's first appearance in popular culture with a particular aspect of the history of a Faith I have now been associated with for more than 60 years, was of more than a little personal interest. I do not expect this to have any special interest to others.

 

Paul Asay of The Washington Post writes that the "religious themes keep coming in Superman films: free will, sacrifice. God-given purpose. Man of Steel isn’t just a movie. It’s a Bible study in a cape. The messages are so strong that its marketers have been explicitly pushing the film to Christian audiences."

 

Part 2:

 

Superman was first conceived in 1932 and was arguably western civilization’s first superhero.  Superman was first portrayed as a villain named Bill Dunn who was later revisioned into a good guy for more popular appeal.  Originally, Superman was produced as a syndicated newspaper strip, which ran from June 1938 until May 1966, before being revived between 1977 and 1983. 

 

Superman was then created, so we are informed, by two high school students in Cleveland Ohio, in 1933.  By then, the Baha'i community's 9 month period of mourning, which began with the passing of this holy woman, had ended.  The comic character, Superman, was sold to Detective Comics, Inc in 1938.  By this time the first formal and systematic teaching Plan of the Baha'i community had just begun.

 

Superman now has an 83-year history(1932-2015).  He appeared in comic books, his central texts in the 1930s and 1940s, followed by the George Reeves' 1950 television serials. I was too young to remember those comic-books, but I do recall some of the episodes of that TV series back in the early to mid-'50s before my mother sold our TV to, hopefully, ensure her son was not tempted into triviality on a daily basis.

 

In the late 1970s and 1980s Christopher Reeve films rewired the entire Superman canon.  The Lois and Clark television series of the 1990s was framed as yet another central Superman text.  The Crisis on Infinite Earths(2001) and The Man of Steel (1986) comic book series rebooted the entire Superman-mythos, framing a range of sources.  These resources were further extended by Superman Returns, as we are informed at that reliable source Wikipedia.

 

Part 3:

 

In 2001, the Smallville television series was launched, focusing on the adventures of Clark Kent as a teenager before he donned the mantle of Superman.   I watched some of these episodes after I had retired from a 50 year student-and-employment life: 1949 to 1999.  Adaptation to various media by any literary or art form depends on a dialogue or oscillation between those media.  If I engaged in a cross-media study of Superman,  I could look back at the more than three-quarters of a century genesis of this trans-media dialogue.  But that is not my purpose in this brief prose-poem.

 

Until the 1980s, comic books had largely been ignored by media theorists,  except as scapegoats in media-effects debates. But comic books are on the cards for analysis by culture theorists in this new millennium.  -Ron Price with thanks to Richard Berger, “Are There Any More at Home Like You?” in the Journal of Adaptation in Film & Performance, Volume 1 Number 2, 2008.

 

Part 4:

 

Why he’s been around since our Plan

began in the 1930s and 1940s. But no

one had any idea that the lifespan of

this superhero went along with the life-

span of this super-Plan that would, in

time, take the world by storm as the hero

Superman certainly did over these last 83

years in which our global society has been

immersed in a tempest unparalleled in its

magnitude and unpredictable in its force.

 

Why I remember those comic books,

and the TV programs way back in the

1950s when I was knee-high to those

grasshoppers....and the Baha’is were

in that Ten Year program that took a

new Faith to where it is today in some

200+ countries and territories, the 2nd

most widespread religion on the planet,

so they tell me in that encyclopedia.(1)

 

Part 5:

 

(1) Encyclopædia Britannica, "Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2002".   The term "Superman" derives from a common English translation of the term Ubermensch which originated with Friedrich Nietzsche's statement, "Ich lehre euch den Übermenschen" ("I will teach you the Superman").  These words appeared in Nietzsche's 1883 work Also Sprach Zarathustra.  Baha'u'llah was released from strict confinement in the prison city of Akka in that same year to begin the last decade of His earthly life, as Charismatic-Founder of the newest, the latest, of the Abrahamic religions.

 

The term "Superman" was popularized by George Bernard Shaw with his 1903 play Man and Superman;  this was the same year as the approval of the building of the mother-temple of the West in Chicago was given by 'Abdul-Baha.  The character Jane Porter refers to Tarzan as a "superman" in the 1912 pulp novel Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs.

 

The originator of Superman would later name Tarzan as an influence on the creation of his own Superman.  Abdul-Baha went on His Western tour that year, a super-human effort by a 68 year old man in the evening of His life. I saw one or two, or more, of the Tarzan films starring Johnny Weissmuller back in the 1950s.

 

Ron Price

14/7/'09 to 21/4/'15.

 

Note:  The above prose-poem was first updated after watching Superman Returns on Australian TV 19 June 2010, and updated again on 17/2/'14, and 21/4/'15.

 

post #130 of 166

Nice piece on Reeve's acting in the original series.

 

Superman’s most amazing special effect didn’t require computers or a green screen

 

 

Quote:

There are many remarkable things about the first Superman film, up to and including the obvious influence on every comic book movie that came later. There wasn’t much of a blueprint in pop culture for what a serious look at a comic book character should look like. There were not yet giants who had shoulders on which Superman could stand.

 

But what really made the film so special was the performance of the late Christopher Reeve, the only actor who could make the idea that no one recognized Clark Kent as Superman due to his glasses even remotely plausible. His performance as both Clark Kent and Superman kept the characters distinct, and it was done through his body. Christopher Reeve was his own best special effect.

 

One scene shows this transformation perfectly.

 

Good read, not too long.

post #131 of 166

Reeve's contribution to that character cannot be overstated.  He was a real ACTOR in that film and his commitment to making it real was extraordinary.  Just look at the subtle but powerful transformation in seconds:

 

 

Puts modern acting in comic book movies to shame.  About the only one who could match him was Ledger.

post #132 of 166

I read Reeve's memoirs (written post-accident) and he clearly took pride in his Juilliard education (IIRC he was very proud of his performance as Pozzo in Waiting for Godot).  Unfortunately there were few films where he really stands out, like Superman.  One of his best roles was one of his last, The Remains of the Day.  TBH I think he nailed his role much more than Anthony Hopkins did.  Many actors today - Superheroes are no exception, as Ambler notes - lead with their chests, sadly.  Henry Cavill seems affable enough as Supes, but he pretty much has the same stoic expression in every scene, and his clothes are, as a crime writer once wrote about someone else, merely 'an unnecessary accident on his body'.       

post #133 of 166
It's the change back to Clark that really impresses me . . . the physicality of it is different, it's looser and fluid and damn near instantaneous.
post #134 of 166

The shift from head-voice (as Clark) to chest-voice (as Supes) is another terrific bit of technique, and one that naturally follows his change in posture.

post #135 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotai View Post

Nice piece on Reeve's acting in the original series.

Superman’s most amazing special effect didn’t require computers or a green screen



Good read, not too long.

Great stuff. Boy could we use Reeve's Superman these days.
post #136 of 166
I wish Cavill would be given just ONE freaking movie that was upbeat and sweet natured and gave him the opportunity to work with similar material. I keep saying a Brad Bird, soft reboot Superman 3 (hell.....2?) would be ideal. I just fucking love Tomorrowland and think that that upbeat happy, hopeful vibe is exactly what Supes needs.

And at this point I also want Matt Reeves (whoa...spooky) to say fuck it and just make his solo Bats movie Batman vs Predator. The teaser poster is a no brainer. It wouldn't have to be anything connected to Hindenburg-esque DCCU and do any crowbarred in references to setting up future stuff. Just let Batfleck go to town on something fun (I know I know....copyrights WB and Fux erm, FOX)..
post #137 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

I wish Cavill would be given just ONE freaking movie that was upbeat and sweet natured and gave him the opportunity to work with similar material. I keep saying a Brad Bird, soft reboot Superman 3 (hell.....2?) would be ideal. I just fucking love Tomorrowland and think that that upbeat happy, hopeful vibe is exactly what Supes needs.

And at this point I also want Matt Reeves (whoa...spooky) to say fuck it and just make his solo Bats movie Batman vs Predator. The teaser poster is a no brainer. It wouldn't have to be anything connected to Hindenburg-esque DCCU and do any crowbarred in references to setting up future stuff. Just let Batfleck go to town on something fun (I know I know....copyrights WB and Fux erm, FOX)..

Cavill absolutely deserves a chance to bring a smiling, inspiring Superman to the screen. Because I absolutely believe he can bring the goods.
post #138 of 166
LITERALLY the only thing holding Cavill's films back is how constantly sour they are (I'm bunching the ham-fisted dourness of the writing in with this). They got the right actors and they sure as SHIT got the visuals (just my opinion). He's given two/four ways to play Superman. Angry and angsty or mopey and self doubting. And Clark isn't even an anything. They do zip with that. That should be saved for Batman. Which is why when they DID do Batman, they had to make him the damn Punisher or Rorschach to maintain the contrast..
post #139 of 166
WB doesn't believe in that upbeat Supes. They've always tried to make the character brooding since SUPERMAN RETURNS so he's "more relatable"
post #140 of 166

It's probably Superman portrayals and films that give the best indicator of what the time period is like.  We live in very cynical times.  I'm getting pretty tired of all the downbeat shit.  It's literally infested everything.  The majority of films these days have a very downbeat/cynical edge to them.  I don't even think people realize just how bad its gotten in terms of tone with cinema.  I've been feeling ill lately, so maybe this has got me thinking about it more than usual.

post #141 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

WB doesn't believe in that upbeat Supes. They've always tried to make the character brooding since SUPERMAN RETURNS so he's "more relatable"


And, in doing so, they made him an asshole.

post #142 of 166

1978 was a plenty cynical time, believe me.

post #143 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
 

1978 was a plenty cynical time, believe me.

 

But they didn't infect Superman with it... which is telling.  

post #144 of 166

Yes, I think the success of Star Wars and other idealistic productions revealed a great need for positivity.

post #145 of 166

There is that bit where Superman says "I'm here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way" and Lois just laughs in his face...

post #146 of 166

It's been 16 years since 9/11.  You'd think that would usher in a whole era of lighthearted stuff, ala the late 70s/80s but that didn't happen, it got even more cynical.

 

Watergate, Vietnam, JFK and such were obvious watershed moments that led to positive stories, but for some reason the studios have not gone there after 9/11.  Marvel is the only thing around that feels like the 80s, but that may be even more cynical given the complete corporate crassness of the operation.  Superman for all its syrupy Americana wasn't the latest film on an assembly line controlled by the iron fist of Marvel (or DC)... it was purely Donner.  It was still a relatively auteur creation even with the Salkinds hovering in the background.

 

I think Marvel is the inevitable end result of Hollywood's formulaic DNA.  A kind of studio xenomorph... perfectly designed, cold, calculated, and without remorse.  Those positive movies in the late 70s and 80s were better not because they were positive, but because they were also auteurist creations.  You take away the distinctiveness of the filmmakers, then it just becomes a cynical operation by default.  Positivity without character is just robotic and sterile IMO.

post #147 of 166
Real life and my personal life are dreary enough and rough enough and bleak at times that I don't get bothered by movies being dark and violent and cynical. Hell....movies are still fun to me no matter what as long as they're entertaining. Superman is just the one that should NOT be that to such a degree..
post #148 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
Those positive movies in the late 70s and 80s were better not because they were positive, but because they were also auteurist creations.  You take away the distinctiveness of the filmmakers, then it just becomes a cynical operation by default.

 

Don't forget the drugs!

post #149 of 166

When it comes to movies, Thor is the new Superman. 

post #150 of 166

I say Cap.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Superman.