Post by ipuertoricanpony on Jun 29, 2006 6:04:52 GMT -5
WARNING: MOVIE SPOILERS AHEAD!
What I find interesting about all of these super hero movies, particularly the ones directed by people who are quoted saying 'I NEVER READ COMICS GROWING UP' is that when you watch the movie, you can tell they don't get it. they say 'I NEVER READ COMICS' as if the idea of doing so were worse than swallowing the most venemous ooze known to man (which by the way is the venom of the taipan snake). It’s ironic, too, since by doing so they are in essence belittling the very work they’re doing. If you wish to explore that point of view.
Having never read comics, they forget that with a character being around for 60 years, as with our boy in blue Superman, there are going to be good stories throughout that time. There’s a reason why these characters last for so long. Yes, of course there’s a level of childishness to some of the comics that come to people’s mind. Believe me, I’ve read some of the ‘ok’ ones, but I’ve also read some of the great ones. Of course, you’re first thought is possibly that there’s a contradiction: greatness associated with comic book writing.
It’s there, ladies and gentlemen, if you’re interested in finding it and know the right people to ask though. If you have the patience and open mind to let yourself be affected.
Hollywood doesn’t quite get that. Sometimes it feels as if they think that all of the stories—the good and the bad ones—all of the writers over a prolonged character’s existence were wrong. The movie can fix it. Forget to simply take the stories that work, the moments that make the characters resonate with millions of readers.
Let’s re-invent, because no one before us knew what they were doing.
This is what Brian Singer’s “Superman Returns” predominantly does. This would be pardonable if the concepts presented in the movie actually worked. Or, rather, if the concepts briefly presented in the movie were actually explored.
Brian Singer said he was affected by the character of Superman because much like the man of steel, Brian is also an orphan. Superman left for five years because astronomers discovered remnants of his home planet Krypton still intact. He’s longed to connect with something, because though he may look human, Superman cannot fit in regardless of what he does. He can never be one of us. He will always have that tragic feeling of being disconnected, living on the emotional peripheral. Except for his mother, no one else knows exactly who he is. It’s a hard life when you can be yourself around only one person, and it’s not even someone you live with. Hence why his relationship to Lois Lane is vital to the character. He needs to lift the weight off his shoulders when he gets home and be able to simply say ‘This is me.’
How much of all of this is explored in the film?
There’s a scene in the beginning with his mother, and maybe two lines. There’s also a scene at the end filled with an awkward set of lines Superman says to his sleeping son.
(Yes, you read correctly: Superman has a son. We’ll get back to this soon.)
The big question of the movie is ‘Where did Superman go?’ Don’t worry, that’s answered right before the opening credits start. It took him five years to get too and from Krypton. But don’t worry, the movie won’t bore you with showing you any part of Superman’s journey and arrival at Krypton. True, there’s a certain emotional impact with an orphan finding out there’s a chance he can still find his home and place, only to see that hope shattered. It would be vital to the story about an orphan trying to find his place and identity in the world.
Then again, the last thing this movie is worried about is emotional impact. It merely dances around the idea for a few moments.
It also dances around the ideas of logic, something that’s very dangerous to do when your story is already about a guy that is invulnerable to bullets and can fly and survive in outer space. Lois Lane’s son in the movie is of course Superman’s. The little boy, Jason, does exhibit his father’s strength in one brief moment when he slams a piano on a thug trying to kill his mom. The only problem is that Superman, whether or not he looks human, is still an alien. His physiology is different, and Lois Lane fathering his child is the equivalent to a grasshopper and a bee having children together. Both insects, but vastly different physiologies.
But let’s leave delving deeper into Superman’s son as a character behind. Trust me, the movie does. Let’s also abandon the discussion of logic. The same logic that tells you that if Lex Luthor is willing to kill billions of people to accomplish his master plan, why wouldn’t he kill his girlfriend for sabotaging him? There are plenty of questions of logic within the world of this Superman movie that you’ll find on your own, should you see it.
While many will criticize Brandon Routh’s acting as a problem in the movie, which it is, it all goes back to the director. The script, the uneven acting—even from Kevin Spacey, supplied with a script that gives his character an uneven set of motivations—the casting. All of these things go back to the man behind the vision, and that’s the director. Superman III, done as a kind of buddy comedy co-starring Richard Pryor, was a disappointment to so many because of how far away it went from the fundamentals of the source material. The same thing can be said for the even more disastrous Superman IV. Superman Returns is meant to replace the third installment, in essence becoming the new part III. Yet, while hoping to bring the series back on track, Singer only managed to fall into the same pitfalls of the other two films. Trying to revive the series by coming up with a concept so unlike the source material. And worse of all, not even exploring the concepts he did introduce.
The movie lacks majesty, chemistry, a sense of wonder at the being in it. The portrayal of the character lacks nobility, intent, confidence. He also lacks a lot of lines. You can’t call a movie “Superman Returns” and give the title character as many lines as you would give an extra.
You also can’t have him awkwardly deliver a line that was greatly delivered with complete conviction by Christopher Reeves in the disappointingly horrible Superman IV.
Superman has possibly become the closest thing to mythology that we have as a culture. A dream of something that can protect us in the scariest times. After this movie, though, maybe it’s safer if he remained in our dreams, retaining his innocence and our own.
ernesto, blogging on myspace much too late at night.
----------
just my thoughts on the movie, folks, and a few other things. thought i'd share it here, too.
What I find interesting about all of these super hero movies, particularly the ones directed by people who are quoted saying 'I NEVER READ COMICS GROWING UP' is that when you watch the movie, you can tell they don't get it. they say 'I NEVER READ COMICS' as if the idea of doing so were worse than swallowing the most venemous ooze known to man (which by the way is the venom of the taipan snake). It’s ironic, too, since by doing so they are in essence belittling the very work they’re doing. If you wish to explore that point of view.
Having never read comics, they forget that with a character being around for 60 years, as with our boy in blue Superman, there are going to be good stories throughout that time. There’s a reason why these characters last for so long. Yes, of course there’s a level of childishness to some of the comics that come to people’s mind. Believe me, I’ve read some of the ‘ok’ ones, but I’ve also read some of the great ones. Of course, you’re first thought is possibly that there’s a contradiction: greatness associated with comic book writing.
It’s there, ladies and gentlemen, if you’re interested in finding it and know the right people to ask though. If you have the patience and open mind to let yourself be affected.
Hollywood doesn’t quite get that. Sometimes it feels as if they think that all of the stories—the good and the bad ones—all of the writers over a prolonged character’s existence were wrong. The movie can fix it. Forget to simply take the stories that work, the moments that make the characters resonate with millions of readers.
Let’s re-invent, because no one before us knew what they were doing.
This is what Brian Singer’s “Superman Returns” predominantly does. This would be pardonable if the concepts presented in the movie actually worked. Or, rather, if the concepts briefly presented in the movie were actually explored.
Brian Singer said he was affected by the character of Superman because much like the man of steel, Brian is also an orphan. Superman left for five years because astronomers discovered remnants of his home planet Krypton still intact. He’s longed to connect with something, because though he may look human, Superman cannot fit in regardless of what he does. He can never be one of us. He will always have that tragic feeling of being disconnected, living on the emotional peripheral. Except for his mother, no one else knows exactly who he is. It’s a hard life when you can be yourself around only one person, and it’s not even someone you live with. Hence why his relationship to Lois Lane is vital to the character. He needs to lift the weight off his shoulders when he gets home and be able to simply say ‘This is me.’
How much of all of this is explored in the film?
There’s a scene in the beginning with his mother, and maybe two lines. There’s also a scene at the end filled with an awkward set of lines Superman says to his sleeping son.
(Yes, you read correctly: Superman has a son. We’ll get back to this soon.)
The big question of the movie is ‘Where did Superman go?’ Don’t worry, that’s answered right before the opening credits start. It took him five years to get too and from Krypton. But don’t worry, the movie won’t bore you with showing you any part of Superman’s journey and arrival at Krypton. True, there’s a certain emotional impact with an orphan finding out there’s a chance he can still find his home and place, only to see that hope shattered. It would be vital to the story about an orphan trying to find his place and identity in the world.
Then again, the last thing this movie is worried about is emotional impact. It merely dances around the idea for a few moments.
It also dances around the ideas of logic, something that’s very dangerous to do when your story is already about a guy that is invulnerable to bullets and can fly and survive in outer space. Lois Lane’s son in the movie is of course Superman’s. The little boy, Jason, does exhibit his father’s strength in one brief moment when he slams a piano on a thug trying to kill his mom. The only problem is that Superman, whether or not he looks human, is still an alien. His physiology is different, and Lois Lane fathering his child is the equivalent to a grasshopper and a bee having children together. Both insects, but vastly different physiologies.
But let’s leave delving deeper into Superman’s son as a character behind. Trust me, the movie does. Let’s also abandon the discussion of logic. The same logic that tells you that if Lex Luthor is willing to kill billions of people to accomplish his master plan, why wouldn’t he kill his girlfriend for sabotaging him? There are plenty of questions of logic within the world of this Superman movie that you’ll find on your own, should you see it.
While many will criticize Brandon Routh’s acting as a problem in the movie, which it is, it all goes back to the director. The script, the uneven acting—even from Kevin Spacey, supplied with a script that gives his character an uneven set of motivations—the casting. All of these things go back to the man behind the vision, and that’s the director. Superman III, done as a kind of buddy comedy co-starring Richard Pryor, was a disappointment to so many because of how far away it went from the fundamentals of the source material. The same thing can be said for the even more disastrous Superman IV. Superman Returns is meant to replace the third installment, in essence becoming the new part III. Yet, while hoping to bring the series back on track, Singer only managed to fall into the same pitfalls of the other two films. Trying to revive the series by coming up with a concept so unlike the source material. And worse of all, not even exploring the concepts he did introduce.
The movie lacks majesty, chemistry, a sense of wonder at the being in it. The portrayal of the character lacks nobility, intent, confidence. He also lacks a lot of lines. You can’t call a movie “Superman Returns” and give the title character as many lines as you would give an extra.
You also can’t have him awkwardly deliver a line that was greatly delivered with complete conviction by Christopher Reeves in the disappointingly horrible Superman IV.
Superman has possibly become the closest thing to mythology that we have as a culture. A dream of something that can protect us in the scariest times. After this movie, though, maybe it’s safer if he remained in our dreams, retaining his innocence and our own.
ernesto, blogging on myspace much too late at night.
----------
just my thoughts on the movie, folks, and a few other things. thought i'd share it here, too.