Superman Returns

[Gold Trumpet]

The comedy aspect of it was played down a little, but look at the story of the original Superman, it's quite sad and I think the reason for pulling some of the more slapstick moments was to fit in more of the heart.

I didn't really read this part. So while I'm still relevant with discussion, I'll reply.

You say the comedy was played down to dig at the sadness. You quote the original Superman story as a context for the argument. Are you referring to the original story from the comic book or the movie? If you are referring to the original movie, your argument is defaulted because the original movie handled both the aspects of sadness and comedy quite well. The tone of the original Superman and Superman Returns are nothing alike and it isnt because this one is any sadder.

For me, Superman is a melodrama. Melodramas have the very specific design of presenting tragedy and heartbreak on a superficial level. The reason the original Superman succeeded is because it used comedy to give the feeling of depth. All the characters are immensely likable and relatable and keep the story from ever falling off the tracks into absurdity. I definitely felt the story fall onto the tracks of absurdity in the new one because there is a major lack of human development to any of the characters.

I have to disagree with some of that.  I watched the first 2 Superman films on HBO over the weekend and the comedy in both (Lex's wonderfully smug dialogue aside) was obviously put there for the kids; very little of it pushed the story forward at all.  For me, the Superman films have always been more about (besides the action sequences) the poignant moments than the comedic ones.  Sure, there's a few great moments in there but the comedy makes the first two teeter between serious adaptation and flat-out parody.  I don't mind that it's there but it certainly doesn't offer any more depth.  If anything, it's filler, albeit amusing filler. 

And the characters were always kind of stock.  Otis' character wasn't really developed at all; he's just some dumb schmuck that Lex hired for God knows what reason (it made more sense that Lex hired his nephew in the god-awful Superman 4).  The only real character development that we get out of Miss Teschmacher is that she has a mother in Hackensack and she always goes for the wrong guys.  And really, how much do we know about Jimmy Olson?  I'm not saying that Superman Returns had any more character development than the original film, I'm saying that it doesn't have any less.  And no installment is any more or less absurd than any other.  A story about a man wearing his underwear on the outside, flying around and fighting crime is pretty absurd by design, as is the idea that no one ever realizes that if you took off Clark Kent's glasses, he looks exactly like Superman.  I'm glad they had a little fun with that in the new film.

If Superman Returns fails anywhere, it's that there wasn't enough with Martha Kent.  I really was hoping for more.  One thing in the movie that really got me was one of the most subtle things.  When she drives out to where Superman crash landed, you see that she still has her wedding ring on, even though her husband died so many years before.  That said so much about her character and the fact that no extra attention was drawn to it was pretty impressive.  I wish they had done more with her for that reason alone. 

In many ways, you're right. The thing is, when I speak of comedy adding depth what I mean is that the comedy element invites us to like and identify with the characters more so than in the new film. There really is little depth as a serious analysis would go, but Superman means to be nothing more than a light fare anyways so nothing is hindered with the focus on the comedy.

You mention all the characters, but you forget to mention Lois Lane and Clark Kent. The original film asks a lot of the audience to believe in the connection of Lois Lane and Clark Kent to truly believe in Superman's desperation and anger as he fails to rescue Lois Lane from the earthquake. The character development in the film is badly written and the film doesn't yeild enough time to give much history to any connection they might have. Superman's connection with Lois Lane is based just on a rescue and one night alone. Yet the earthquake scene does work because all the characters were instantly likable and geniune in their motives. The positive exterior of the film is due to the focus on the comedy.

[matt35mm]

Has anyone seen it in IMAX 3d? If so how was it?

it's hit and miss. most of it is pretty distracting.  i would recommend seeing it on a regular screen first. 

Oh yeah?  Shit.  I've been planning on the IMAX... and I had heard good things.  If I were going to watch it just once, would you still recommend the regular screen?

And what's the Singer-designed cue for the glasses?

[Kal]

If Superman Returns fails anywhere, it's that there wasn't enough with Martha Kent.  I really was hoping for more.  One thing in the movie that really got me was one of the most subtle things.  When she drives out to where Superman crash landed, you see that she still has her wedding ring on, even though her husband died so many years before.  That said so much about her character and the fact that no extra attention was drawn to it was pretty impressive.  I wish they had done more with her for that reason alone. 

Thats one of the reasons why I like Smallville. It shows that aspect of Superman that was left out of the movies. How human is he? Why does he care so much about humanity? Why Clark Kent is who he is, and Martha's influence. Smallville shows everything very well, and Martha is one of the most important characters. Also, since they showed the father's death on the show, it shows how important he was and the repercussions of that in his life.

[pete]

its ok to express your opinion but coming back again and again to trash the movie and everybodys opinion is kinda stupid...

a piece of shit like X-Men

[JG]

Has anyone seen it in IMAX 3d? If so how was it?

it's hit and miss. most of it is pretty distracting.  i would recommend seeing it on a regular screen first. 

Oh yeah?  Shit.  I've been planning on the IMAX... and I had heard good things.  If I were going to watch it just once, would you still recommend the regular screen?

And what's the Singer-designed cue for the glasses?

it was great at the IMAX.  There's only four scenes in 3D, but they all worked well.   There's one moment I recall, I think the first 3D scene where a young Clark is in the barn, that looks especially real.  3D movies in general still have kinks to be worked out, but moments like those kinda show to me that in a couple years, this could be a new and exciting direction for cinema.   Having to wear the glasses (blinking green lights at the bottom of the screen let you know when to put them on) is kinda tough because if your not wearing them perfectly, or if you smeared butter on the lense ( ), it doesn't look perfect, but when it does --  .  The IMAX screens are so big that the screens encompass almost all of your vision and its a pretty immersive experence when it does work.  i feel like that once the technique is perfected, cinema will be able to touch into a different part of the brain where its so vivid that it becomes almost dreamlike.   i just wish you didn't have to wear the glasses, and that it didn't have to be an action movie.   gimme a malick film and then its a truly amazing experience.   

the movie was okay.    not enough "down" moments and far too little characterization.   especially for lois's kid.  i'm able to overlook a lot of its flaws because a) it showed me the capabilities of 3D, and b) it was a damn good time. 

but see it.  at the IMAX.  and enjoy every minute of it. 

[matt35mm]

THAT'S what I wanted to hear! 

[RegularKarate]

The comedy aspect of it was played down a little, but look at the story of the original Superman, it's quite sad and I think the reason for pulling some of the more slapstick moments was to fit in more of the heart.

You say the comedy was played down to dig at the sadness. You quote the original Superman story as a context for the argument. Are you referring to the original story from the comic book or the movie? If you are referring to the original movie, your argument is defaulted because the original movie handled both the aspects of sadness and comedy quite well. The tone of the original Superman and Superman Returns are nothing alike and it isnt because this one is any sadder.

The difference is that the original starts with comedy and moves into sadness.  Returns starts off with the sadness and therefore has to tone down the comedy.

[Gold Trumpet]

The comedy aspect of it was played down a little, but look at the story of the original Superman, it's quite sad and I think the reason for pulling some of the more slapstick moments was to fit in more of the heart.

You say the comedy was played down to dig at the sadness. You quote the original Superman story as a context for the argument. Are you referring to the original story from the comic book or the movie? If you are referring to the original movie, your argument is defaulted because the original movie handled both the aspects of sadness and comedy quite well. The tone of the original Superman and Superman Returns are nothing alike and it isnt because this one is any sadder.

The difference is that the original starts with comedy and moves into sadness.  Returns starts off with the sadness and therefore has to tone down the comedy.

Krypton exploding is fun? Clark Kent's father dying is cheery? Along those lines, the original Superman starts with sadness and moves into comedy and the back into sadness with the earthquake. You can still specify differences between the original and the new film, but its not worth it.

Anyways, we're getting off base here. Both films have similar storylines and qualities to them. Superman Returns tries to be as funny as the original Superman. It just isn't. The characterization isn't as good to be funny or charming at all. Its just bland. The focus of Superman returns is too technically suave to support the good characterization. Too many cuts dominate simple scenes and the action sequences have a reliance on so much CGI that the film becomes a wonderfest of visuals that keep characterizarion on the back burner.

[MacGuffin]

Exclusive Interview: DIRECTOR BRYAN SINGER REVEALS WHAT WAS LEFT ON THE CUTTING ROOM FLOOR OF SUPERMAN RETURNS - PT. 2
In a candid three-part interview with iF MAGAZINE, the filmmaker discusses the future of the SUPERMAN franchise and the excised Return to Krypton sequence 
By: ANTHONY C. FERRANTE; iF Magazine

Flying high this weekend at the boxoffice, SUPERMAN RETURNS took in over $108.1 million in seven days, no doubt resulting in a collective sigh of relief from Warner Bros. who invested many years in their attempts to re-launch the Superman character on the big screen.

The key to the success was nabbing X-MEN helmer Bryan Singer. His radical re-invention of the Superman mythos was not to re-imagine and change him for the 21st Century, but rather take a more retro-approach in linking his vision with that of Richard Donner's who was the brainchild behind the first two SUPERMAN movies in 1978 and 1981 respectively.

After a whirlwind of publicity, Singer granted iF Magazine an exclusive interview last week, a day before SUPERMAN RETURNS hit theaters. In part 2 of this candid three-part story, the filmmaker talks about Brandon Roth's embodiment of Superman, the future of the franchise and what was left on the cutting room floor of SUPERMAN RETURNS.

iF MAGAZINE: Brandon Routh doesn't come off as a caricature or a parody of the Christopher Reeve-era of SUPERMAN, he's just Superman. How did you get Brandon to that point, without the character evolving into parody?

BRYAN SINGER: I wasn't looking for someone with that striking resemblance, but Brandon does bear a certain resemblance to Christopher Reeve, so that is an added bonus. He has to look and sound as if Superman stepped out of your collective consciousness and part of that is Christopher Reeve. He had a calm center that was very much Superman and an awkward vulnerability that is Clark Kent. And he had the physical [part]. There were aspects in talking with him [initially], that would translate very much to the heart of Clark Kent who was raised on the farm and who would figure out how to reclaim his relationship with Lois Lane, with these insurmountable human obstacles. [Also, casting an unknown has] served me well in the past. With HOUSE, USUAL SUSPECTS and X-MEN, I've always had unknowns at the center of my films. It's not essential for me. I'm not against working with movie stars, but it is kind of exciting to craft and make that audience feel they're watching Superman, not someone play a role or impersonate him, they're just watching Superman on the screen. Somehow it kicks off that collective memory or preconception of the character.

iF: There was a quote that popped up right after the SUPERMAN RETURNS junket about the IMAX film and how you would like to take a deleted scene and show it in IMAX, but it was unclear if you meant for a future re-release, or some time in the next few months. Can you clarify what you meant by that?

SINGER: There's a sequence I shot in the movie where Superman returns to the shattered remains of his home world on Krypton. I shot the sequence, and I chose to complete the sequence. It's a pretty expensive elaborate sequence, but it ultimately didn't play in the scope of the movie. It wasn't necessary and it didn't feel right in the movie. I took it out and cut it. It was one of those kind of things where you have to hold your breath. Even though I worked very hard on this and even though it's very elaborate and elegant and expensive, I'm going to have the guts to pull it out, because it's going to compromise the rest of the picture. In looking what IMAX has done with the 20 minutes of 3-D they've created for the IMAX release of SUPERMAN RETURNS, it's just so impressive and interesting. And when I look at this sequence, I really feel, it doesn't belong on a DVD, it doesn't belong on [the theatrical version of the] movie, but if I were to make more of the movie 3-D later at some point, a year or something like that, I would have them to do the same process on the RK [Return to Krypton] sequence as I call it. That might be a nice thing to have for audiences down the road. You don't think about those things until you see how people respond to the movie.

iF: How long was the sequence?

SINGER: About five or six minutes.

iF: So there might be a SUPERMAN RETURNS: IMAX SPECIAL EDITION?

SINGER: The only way I would consider it, if there were a worthwhile alteration or treatment of the movie. I'm not super fond of recutting a movie I've made. I feel the cuts of my movies are the director's cut, but down the road, seeing how this IMAX conversion works, and seeing how the movie plays, It's always possible that in the future, I'm holding this sequence back, it exists and I can use it there. This was just a thought I had. There is nothing conniving or for economics per se. The sequence exists, it was completed, it has not yet been scored. IMAX did one test on one of the space shots in 3-D and I could see what the landscape would look like in 3-D and it was cool. It was like the difference between POLAR EXPRESS and POLAR EXPRESS in 3-D. SUPERMAN RETURNS can be experienced both ways. It was shot to be a conventional film, but the 3-D process is really extraordinary, but in this particular RK sequence, there is so much going on dimensionally in space, it would be fun to see it in that way. Seeing it not in that way, it was something ultimately the film could do without.

iF: The running time of the movie is pretty long, I'm assuming there is a longer cut of the movie as well? Did you delete a lot of stuff?

SINGER: Not much longer. I got it to a two hour and forty-five minute cut and at that point, I needed to sit with an audience and watch it. So I put together a friends and family screening. It's a very mellow group, about 100 people or so. Children of people at Warner Bros., friends of mine, they all sit in theater and we watch the film. People fill out little cards or they talk to you afterwards. You really know what's working and what's not working as you're watching it. And I felt it, so I was able to pull over fifteen minutes out of the film.

iF: Which pieces were that?

SINGER: Things in the beginning. There was a little more on the Kent farm, there was this RK sequence. There were little things throughout the movie, bits and pieces I always wanted to address and they totaled about fifteen minutes. I reconceived the beginning a bit at the last minute. It began a little differently originally. It began with a proscenium stage and the original opening scenes played out differently. I felt there were too many openings to the movie, too much exposition. So once I had all this material, I stepped back from it. I said, "I think this needs to open more poetic." I need to have a bit of the past, I need to evoke Brando and the voice of Jor-El and a bit of Krypton's history, but I need to do it in a more poetic way than I was doing as it was constructed. So I did a little reconceiving of the beginning and then removed that [Return to Krypton] sequence and some elements of the farm and it kind of worked itself out well. If your film is a little too front heavy, it gets into the cumulative effects of your cut and there are little objectivity games you play with yourself and part of it is sitting with and audience and watching it. You feel it in a room, you feel when it's working and when it's not. That's where I made most of my cuts – in the beginning.

iF: I know you've talked about being unsure if you want to come back to do a sequel. However, let's assume if you're going to come back and do a sequel, how would you approach it,, especially since the Rogue' gallery for Superman is pretty skimpy on memorability compared to other superhero franchises. How would you determine who your villain would be?

SINGER: I couldn't tell you that, because if I did, it would take me down a slope of revealing a series of thoughts I do have regarding that. It would deal with the present characters and the present situation that happens and there would obviously be additional characters, but in this movie, there is certainly a conundrum and a situation occurring. It takes him the length of the movie to crystallize Superman's position and reclaim who he is in this world and in Metropolis in a way, I would tend to want to explore some of the things that have already been established. It would certainly be a continuation of this movie. There would be a new element, but I wouldn't want to reveal that.

iF: Is LOGAN'S RUN dead?

SINGER: It's not dead, it's too magnificent. The world we developed and the things we pre-vised is too extraordinary. Not only was I shooting this movie over the last two years, but also I have my [Fox] TV series HOUSE and I also produced [THE TRIANGLE] mini-series for the SCI FI network which was simultaneously shooting in South Africa. So some of these things were relatively new to me, over the last two years, while making [SUPERMAN RETURNS], so these two years were very overwhelming and I couldn't jump right into a movie of that scope and LOGAN'S RUN was becoming a movie of tremendous scope and as I explained in the earlier part of this interview, how challenging and exhausting these things can be. Right now I have to take a sort of enforced vacation.

[MacGuffin]

Director Bryan Singer mulls a superhero showdown 
Source: MTV

Now that Superman has returned, what menace will he battle next? That's the big question in Hollywood this week, and since Brandon Routh was discovered in casting sessions for a once-planned "Batman vs. Superman" flick, rumors of the blockbuster smackdown have been resurrected. "I was at a party recently; Hugh Jackman had a benefit at his house," "Superman Returns" director Bryan Singer said. "I went there, and Christian Bale was there, and I suddenly felt like Brandon should be there too. I had all these superheroes around me." Routh added that while he enjoyed sparring verbally with "Batman" star Bale recently at the MTV Movie Awards, he'd prefer to see the two heroes work together. "I don't think we should go toe-to-toe, unless one of us is deranged somehow by some mind-altering drug," he laughed. "We shouldn't be fighting each other; we should be combining forces." Singer said he'd consider directing a "Batman vs. Superman" flick, but only after the Man of Steel establishes his identity a bit more thoroughly. "I've thought about it for a long time — even a longer time ago, actually," the director revealed. "But I don't know who would be the villain. I guess Batman would be the villain, but then he can't be too bad, because he is Batman. So not quite yet. ... I think Superman needs to have his own movies for a little while before that happens." Either way, Singer insisted that "everybody's excited to do more ... and I'm sure we'll do another one." And Routh had this word of warning for Bale: "I don't think Batman really, really wants to go and mess with Superman."

[modage]

i know a lot of people are against this idea, and it could so easily be terrible but i would still love to see it like 10 years down the line when superman and batman have had like 3 or 4 good films apiece.  as long as somebody like singer or nolan directed it and it doesnt actually have 'vs' in the title it could be great.  worlds finest. 

[©brad]

i don't want to dwell too much on this subject, for i fear if it spans too many pages we'll have to rename this thread "where virginity also lives forever" but superman would OWN batman. no contest. one of them swings on wires. the other can pick up a plane.

[Raikus]

Did you watch Superman Returns?

All Batman would have to do is bang Lois Lane with this Bruce Wayne charm and Supes would fly himself into the sun.

Game over.

[Kal]

I think the way to do this would be more of a rivarly to get the appreciation and support from the people. They wouldnt fight each other, but compete to be the best superhero, the one that makes a bigger difference in saving lives and stuff. When you think about it, its kinda boring, but it could work. Other than that Superman would destroy Batman and his gadgets in less than a minute.

[Gold Trumpet]

Well, this rumor has been around before. When Batman Begins was being prepped to be released it was reported by a fan that he ran into Christian Bale and asked him about the plans for the Batman franchise and Bale said said there would be two sequels and then a Superman vs. Batman film. Superman may win the battle, but Batman will always win the interest factor. Superman's blandness will make him the antagonist.