Short answer: It was a film that surpassed the quality of the script, making up with special effects and human drama what it lacked in coherent plot.
Longer answer below, with spoilers (sorry, couldn’t be helped.):
I’ve always been a firm believer in judging various creative works for themselves, rather than comparing them to previous works. The problem in this case is that Superman Returns screams for exactly that sort of comparison. Basically it’s a sequel to Superman: The Movie and Superman II, and it places itself against its predecessors every chance it gets. From repeated music to repeated shots to repeated dialogue, it cries out to be held up next to what went before, unlike “Batman Begins” and that movie’s determination to create a film with a totally different atmosphere from the Burton or (God help us) Schumacher incarnations. The simple fact is that, without the first two Superman films, there is no “Superman Returns.”
So let’s compare them—
Scripts: Let’s face it, neither of them were Pulitzer or even Oscar material. “Superman Returns” has holes you could drive Krypton through. (1) Superman’s departure without a word of explanation to Lois cannot be excused by the concept that he just found it too hard to say good-bye. His unexplained absence was simply cruel. For that matter, why wasn’t she worried about his safety? Contrast the genuinely human reaction of Sarah Jane Smith in “School Reunion” who, after encountering the Doctor after thirty years absence, at first is overjoyed and then cries in an accusing fashion, “I thought you died!” Not Lois, no. She writes a rage-fueled essay about why the world doesn’t need Superman. She acted like a woman who knew she was unceremoniously dumped, but she couldn’t actually have known it. So not accepting the basic premise is something of a problem for me. (2) Luthor’s plan is unclear and confusing. It threatens to cause a tidal wave that would swamp Metropolis, but it never does. Menacing the world, he creates an environment that protects him from Superman. Swell. But there’s nothing protecting him from, say, 500-pound bombs. Or the 82nd Airborne. The notion is that the world will want to do business with him. I’m thinking not. I’m thinking they see him as a threat and act accordingly. (3) I know it’s always been a conceit that the intrepid reporters of the Daily Planet are too stupid to connect Clark and Superman, but c’mon. Clark goes away, Superman goes away. Clark comes back, Superman comes back. There’s stupid and then there’s moronic.
On the other hand, there was nothing truly wince worthy. The film didn’t crash to a halt while Lois Lane recited poetry. There was no WTF moment such as Superman reversing the world or sucking Lois’ memory out of her head through her mouth…in other words, a sequence that erased the necessity of some large chunk of the movie. There was no Otis. The filmmakers trusted the material, as opposed to the original film where it often seemed they didn’t.
“SUPER”ior script: “Superman Returns”
Director: Richard Donner basically made a breakthrough film. It was the first time there had been any serious treatment (at least for the first hour) of a comic book superhero. And what treatment! The screenplay by Mario Puzo gave Superman a sense of scope on par with a biblical epic, and Donner came through. The problem was that Donner made no effort to meld the tone of Puzo’s work with that of the so-campy-you-wondered-where-Adam-West-was work of the three other screenwriters. Consequently, the tone of the film lurches wildly. You can sense it skid off the rails the moment Ned Beatty shows up. The human and heroic elements of the Superman storyline jar wildly with the campy Lex Luthor material.
At least Singer keeps a much firmer hand on his tale. It doesn’t hang together, but at least it’s consistent. We don’t go from high-heroics to high-camp, and the bit where Superman gets the crap kicked out of him by Luthor’s goons is quite possibly the most heart-wrenching sequence ever depicted in a superhero film, surpassing even the death of Uncle Ben. People in the audience was gasping, groaning, even looking away because it was so brutal. Plus there’s all the aforementioned winks and nods to the original (Lois fainting after being rescued and still unable to spell; Glenn Ford’s photograph on the mantle in the Kent home; an extended sequence where Luthor watches a miniature city get shaken to bits was probably a nod to Superman: The Movie where very obvious models were used for the earthquake sequence, as if to say, “Watch: We’re going to do better than this.”) And if Donner dropped hints as to Messianic intent (“And so I give them you…my only son”) Singer drops anvils (Superman drifting helpless and unconscious in a classic crucifixion pose—dying for our sins, presumably, the sin being lack of faith in our “savior”…and, yes, there’s even a resurrection. Plus I loved the Aquaman pajamas, which had nothing to do with anything, but I want me a pair.) He’s even sly enough to re-create the cover to Action Comics #1 as Superman hefts a car over his head.
So, even though we must acknowledge Donner’s breakthrough work, just for the quality of the final product, SUPERior director: Bryan Singer.
Brandon Routh: I did not come out of Superman the Movie thinking that a man could fly. I did, however, believe that a man could fool people into thinking he was two different guys using basically skilled acting and a pair of glasses.
Not so Routh. His Superman is…competent. Decent. Classically handsome, strong jawed, looks great in tights. But in order to be Superman, he needs the tights, the cape, the spitcurl and the special effects.
Chris Reeve, by contrast, could be Superman by simply removing his Clark Kent glasses, straightening his back, deepening his voice, and saying, “Lois…there’s something I have to tell you.” Yes, his Clark was over-the-top, but let’s face it, so is wearing blue and red tights with your underwear on the outside. Reeve’s Superman radiated charisma, power, and a sense of humor. Routh’s Superman, when he’s not juggling real estate or planes, is so low-key he’s almost subliminal. Actually, he’s so low-key he’s almost Clark, glasses or no. He holds our interest without quite piquing it.
SUPERior Superman: Chris Reeve.
Lois Lane: Boy, this one’s a toughie. The problem stems from the fact that Lois is in such two radically different points in her life. Margot Kidder was all throaty wonderment and discovery as she encountered Superman for the first time and fell in love with him. It was all so charming. Kate Bosworth isn’t charming. She’s a mother, she’s in another relationship, she’s got no sense of closure, she’s bitter. There’s a glorious irony in that Kidder’s Lois Lane dreamt of Superman and of winning the Pulitzer Prize, whereas Bosworth’s Lois Lane still nurses anger and is winning the Pulitzer prize for shattering her own dreams of Superman. Some people have also complained that Bosworth is a bit callow to play Lois, especially considering that five years have passed. Bosworth is 23 and looks it. However, despite her youth, I believe her more as a reporter than I did Margot Kidder. But I believe Margot Kidder as Lois Lane more than I do Kate Bosworth.
SUPERior Lois: Tie.
Luthor: Despite the comic opera aspects of the original Luthor, Hackman somehow came across as more menacing. Perhaps that’s because there was a wider contrast in his activities. As much as I feel the comedic nonsense and camp aspects hurt the film, they did serve to set up the chilling moments such as Luthor’s calm response to Superman’s outraged demand, “Is this how a twisted mind like yours get its kicks? By planning the deaths of millions of innocent people?” (“No. By causing the deaths of millions of innocent people.”) and his subsequent advancing on Superman with Kryptonite. But Spacey owes his success as Luthor to the more consistent overall tone of the script and film. The sequence where Kitty freaks out on him upon discovering that he deliberately placed her in harm’s way and he cold-bloodedly explains his reasoning is truly marvelous. Plus, bottom line, Hackman was unwilling to embrace the Luthor trademark of baldness while Spacey happily shaved his head. They were both great, but bottom line, I have to say…
SUPERior Lex: Kevin Spacey, by a hair (or lack thereof).
Luthor’s floozy: They basically both go through the same character arc: They come to appreciate the greatness that is Superman and wind up undercutting Lex’s plan, earning his wrath. The difference is that Parker Posey doesn’t look like she knows why she’s there much of the time, whereas Valerie Perrine is…well, she’s Valerie Perrine, for God’s sake. The sex goddess of my youth.
SUPERior Floozy: Valerie Perrine.
Music: This isn’t even close. There isn’t a note of memorable score in Superman Returns that wasn’t lifted from John Williams.
SUPERior Score: Superman: The Movie.
So basically, in terms of the one-to-one comparisons, it’s a dead heat. That leaves us with the things that don’t match up exactly, and in those, I have to say, Superman Returns leaves its predecessor in the dust. Contrast the absence of someone as over-the-top as Otis with the presence of Richard White, whom Singer wisely chooses to portray—not as a schmuck—but a heroic individual whom Lois could easily fall in love with. Yes, he’s not Superman…but he doesn’t have to be. Consider the far better use of cameos: Noel Neill and Kirk Allyn, the original serial Lois and Clark, had their brief cameo whittled nearly into non-existence in Superman the Movie. Here Noel actually gets to act as the dying old woman in the beginning, and Jack Larson—the TV series Jimmy Olsen—gets a nice sized scene as Bo the bartender. Then there’s the matter of Lois’ son. I mean, let’s face it, with all his physical frailty, the writers tried too hard. They went overboard trying to convince us that Jason’s father isn’t who we all knew he was before seeing a single frame of the film. (Although it sets up an interesting conundrum: Presuming he was conceived during Clark and Lois’ assignation in the Fortress—an involvement that Lois would now have no recollection of—basically his presence is the equivalent of an immaculate conception from Lois’ point of view.) Nevertheless, the young actor does a marvelous job, the timing of the reveal is nicely done, and the scene toward the end with Superman and the sleeping Jason is, quite simply, the best Superman scene ever committed to film.
Overall, then, kudos to the movie makers. They’ve outdone that which they modeled their film on.
Now about that Superman/Batman crossover…
PAD
• 
This thread is as long as the movie so forgive me if I repeat an observation that has been made but: The glaring problem I had was the young Clark Kent. Please tell my why (before assuming his secret identity) did he need glasses.
To establish that Superman is a role Clark Kent plays, as opposed to Clark Kent being the role Superman plays.
This thread is as long as the movie so forgive me if I repeat an observation that has been made but: The glaring problem I had was the young Clark Kent. Please tell my why (before assuming his secret identity) did he need glasses.
************************
If you have a child who is growing stronger and stronger by the day, who never breaks a bone (despite living and working on a farm) and never even so much as misses a day of school due to a cold, you are going to want to come up with ways to alleviate suspicion, to make the child seem “normal.” That’s where the glasses come in.
That’s why I always thought Tom Welling should have worn glasses as Clark Kent on “Smallville”. Glasses work not just as a “disguise” but as evidence of human frailty (poor vision).
“If you have a child who is growing stronger and stronger by the day, who never breaks a bone (despite living and working on a farm) and never even so much as misses a day of school due to a cold, you are going to want to come up with ways to alleviate suspicion, to make the child seem “normal.” That’s where the glasses come in.
That’s why I always thought Tom Welling should have worn glasses as Clark Kent on “Smallville”. Glasses work not just as a “disguise” but as evidence of human frailty (poor vision).”
Yeah, but this is a “sequel” to the Reeve movies. Jeff East did not wear them as Clark.
I think a lot has been played in the media about reusing the music and the Brando footage to distract from the fact that this is a major, I think better, reinterpretation of the character. I think we were sold a “sequel” to ease the audience into the changes.
I found a whole bunch of little things wrong with the movie – did they really need to illustrate what a dog eat dog world is like? Was it really necessary to turn a 5 year old boy into a murderer? And if a Superman without a piece of Kryptonite embedded in his skin could barely stand up, how did he lift up a freakin’ island into space? Plus, that plane and everyone on it should have been smashed to little bits and pieces, instead of walking away completely conscious and without a scratch. And why couldn’t Luthor just make his new continent in the middle of the Atlantic, rather than overrun North America? To get rid of the competition? Lastly, Where was Luthor’s superior Kryptonian Tech? Hiding underneath the waterfall?
So yeah, lot’s of holes – which are pointless to discuss, ‘cuase I still loved the dámņ movie and look forward to seeing it again.
BarryDubya
“So yeah, lot’s of holes – which are pointless to discuss, ‘cuase I still loved the dámņ movie and look forward to seeing it again. “
I also loved the movie, but I also love pointless discussions.
“I also loved the movie, but I also love pointless discussions.”
Then the Internet must be like heaven for you. 🙂
“I would’ve stated that the Clown guy was just knocked unconscious.”
Based on the Jason character (who had asthma and other maladies) it seems that (unlike the first Superman movie), Kryptonian children don’t manifest all of their powers as soon as they land on earth – they develop over time. So it’s reasonable to assume that young Clark needed glasses, until his powers fully kicked in, as shown in the flashback sequence, when he turned to look at his glasses as he was hovering in midair, as if to say “don’t need those suckers anymore!”
Of course, Jason was about 10 years younger than Clark was, but then we get into that “thinkig too much about realm” again…
Jason lashed (shoved or pushed) out in anger (though Jason is about as expressive as a soggy piece of toast) to save his mother from certain death…the killing was at least justified, it’s possible Superman himself has some skeletons in his closet.
BarryDubya said: “Based on the Jason character (who had asthma and other maladies) it seems that (unlike the first Superman movie), Kryptonian children don’t manifest all of their powers as soon as they land on earth – they develop over time. So it’s reasonable to assume that young Clark needed glasses, until his powers fully kicked in, as shown in the flashback sequence, when he turned to look at his glasses as he was hovering in midair, as if to say ‘don’t need those suckers anymore!'”
That’s not how I interpret these things. First, Jason isn’t a Kryptonian; he’s a hybrid of a Kryptonian and a Terran. The fact that he hadn’t displayed superhuman powers before then has no bearing on whether Clark had superhuman powers the moment he arrived.
The glasses are simply a continuity glitch. The 1979 movie clearly shows him without glasses until he heads to the artic to “build” the Fortress of solitude. However, that’s a small thing and if they work for you, then I would suggest just ignoring their lack in the 1979 film and going with it.
Couple of comments with the Kryptonite/Contininte lifting
(1) he had just super charged himself with solar energey (not just recovering from the kryptonite but at maximum chargeable strnegth-sort of like in All-Star Superman)
(2) He had gone very deep where the Kryptonite had not yet gotten ton. It continues to go deeper and deeper as he lifts it eventually getting close to him, and starts having more of an effect
(3)The effort practically kills him, especially when it finally reaches the bottom near Superman
(4) It is something of a comic book thing that the hero beats impossible odds-say Superman killing Doomsday even as he is killed, Spider-man lifting the machinery off of him in that classic scene, though pinned, Spider-man beating Firelord through force of will, Captain America being the last man standing against THanos and the Infinity Gauntlet, etc.
Was it really necessary to turn a 5 year old boy into a murderer?
****
Killing someone is not always murder. and certainly not in a life and death situation with an instinctual reaction by a child with a 5 year old brain (and the diminished capacity that goes with it) who feels threatened.
Largely agree with Peter’s (and others’) review of the film, so I won’t detail my thoughts on that. Overall I enjoyed the film, but it certainly is flawed. I liked it better than Superman (1978), which i loved at the time (as a 16-year old kid) but which has aged poorly imo. My biggest problem with SR is that i can’t even consider a sequel to I & II, but more of a remake of Superman I. I found it painfully derivative even though I think Singer did a better job of it than Donner.
Anyway, I only skimmed the above comments so this might have been discussed already, but if so i missed it…
Continuity inconsistencies re: Lois’ memory notwithstanding, the film raises several intriguing questions about Lois’ son Jason. I thought that Jason shoving the piano was the first use of his power – with Lois surprised by it – but my wife is convinced (and since convinced me) that Lois knew all along that Jason was Superman’s son and that all of the kid’s frailties (his asthma, etc.) are essentially a cover to hide his powers. When she introduces Jason to Clark in the newsroom, she even says something about him growing up to be strong like his “father” – whom we are led to assume is Richard, but is actually Superman. But iirc, Lois never actually says that Richard is the father – and nor does Richard actually call Jason his son, though he’s obviously raising the boy as his own. Good use of ambiguity there.
Anyone else pick up on this?
Ray
Ah, my last post is unclear. Lois of course knows that Jason is Superman’s kid – she says as much to Superman at the hospital – but it’s unclear if she knows that he has Superman’s powers until the piano scene. My wife, at least, believes that she’s well aware that he’s “Superboy” and that she’s been trying to hide it with a fake inhaler, etc.
There are hints throughout the film that Lois knows Jason is Clark’s, such as when Luthor asks and she seems to hesitate before hastily answering ‘Richard’. But I don’t think Jason’s asthma was fake, as evidenced by his asthmatic reaction to when he noticed Clark and Superman looked alike, Lois about to get her head bashed in and his urgent need for the inhaler. I just think his powers hadn’t kicked in yet until he became a piano man.
Responding to the ‘murder’ post above, whether Jason’s actions were justified/legal or not, the fact is, he killed a man. Regardless of age, that’s not something that can ever be changed. While it is possible that was done deliberately for possible use in a sequel, if it wasn’t, I don’t see any reason why one of the other thugs couldn’t have just said “We think (thug’s name) is dead.”, making it not so definitive and thereby not making a five year old a killer.
I don’t weep for the thugs death. I barely even noticed.
“I don’t weep for the thugs death.”
*Nobody* cares about the thug. Whether or not the thug deserves to die isn’t the issue.
Whether or not a child would be traumatised by being an executioner, that’s a significant issue. Since full grown adults have problems being executioners in state executions, it’s a reasonable concern.
Some people aren’t bothered by it, some people are. They could have had a scene everyone liked if they had done something that beat the crap out of the thug without killing him.
About the glasses, it’s not a continuity error at all. The boy in Returns is clearly younger than the teenage Clark in the first movie, and if I remember correctly we never seen him any younger than that in the first movie, except for when he emerges from the spacecraft. So who’s to say the young Clark didn’t wear glasses?
Everyone hear has overlooked the biggest movie flaw of all – one based on good old physics. That beautiful scene where Jesus in a Cape is floating over the world listening to all our prayers? Listening? Sound in space? Space is a vacuum. Sound has to be propagated through a medium. He can’t do that in the comics because its not possible. Its like shooting a beam with your eyes and rebuilding the Great Wall of China. Nonsense, like most of the movie.
“We never seen him”? Whoa, how’d that slip in there?
For those of you who haven’t seen the flick in IMAX 3-D, go now and do so! The four scenes in 3-D are amazing, and you really won’t care about continuity or plot holes while watching them! Unfortunately, you don’t get the Spidey 3 trailer, but you do get several 3-D previews. It’s worth the second mortgage, kids!
OK. After reading these posts, I feel cheated. My theater did not show a Spider-Man 3 trailer.
Are the 3d glasses clear or red and blue (IMAX 3d). Unfortunately red in my left eye doesn’t work correctly so normal 3d glasses don’t work at all.
Ray, I thought Jason’s weaknesses might be fake too (“I know this will sound idiotic, Superman, but the best way to hide his powers is by making him look weak and helpless.”).
I agree that Spacey’s scheme was a retread of Luthor’s landgrab from the original movie, but I found building an entire continent and flooding the east coast of America considerably more in the Luthor spirit than just launching a missile. And thank God, less camp (I rate the original a lot lower because of that quality, though it bothers me less rewatching today).
In that vein, if they had to give Luthor another female sidekick, I wish they’d swiped Mercy from the Dini/Timm cartoons. Posey does well, but there’s no point.
Yes, other characters have been affected by their non-comic book appearances: Wonder Woman started doing retconned Earth II World War II stories when the TV series set her in that era; the Bat-books resurrected Alfred when the TV series brought him back (it also boosted the Riddler into the ranks of the top villains, when he’d never been more than second-string before); and Harley Quinn migrated from Dini/Timm to the comics continuity.
Me, despite the flaws (I agree with whoever said that even if solar exposure can explain Supes withstanding the kryptonite, that sort of misses the point of kryptonite) I liked it. For a two and a half hour film it flew by.
One thing I really liked is Superman’s whirlwind stints where he’s stopping sixteen crimes or disasters in a matter of seconds.
krighton:
IMAX 3D is the polarized kind of 3D — no red and green.
Does anyone still do the red and green anymore? (And speaking of which I wonder what ever became of Ray Zone?)
1They could have had a scene everyone liked if they had done something that beat the crap out of the thug without killing him.
*****
So a massive assault and battery would be ok, as long as he didn’t die?
Re the inhaler: it could be that being near the crystals kicked his powers in somehow, and that he really did need the inhaler otherwise. We already saw that kryptonite had no effect, so we know he doesn’t work the same way as a Kryptonian.
Sound has to be propagated through a medium. He can’t do that in the comics because its not possible. Its like shooting a beam with your eyes and rebuilding the Great Wall of China. Nonsense, like most of the movie.
******
It’s called fun. Like explosions/noise in Star Trek and Star Wars. I’m not interested in real world physics when i go to see a movie about a guy who can will himself to fly.
“So a massive assault and battery would be ok, as long as he didn’t die?”
Yes. Knocking the guy unconscious can be played much lighter. It doesn’t have to be Looney Toons or Home Alone, just not so severe. Movie audiences are extremely used to someone getting knocked unconscious and standing up later with no permanent damage.
>But before that, he flew up and got that good dose of unfiltered yellow sun radiation and THEN flew down to move the kryptonite. I accepted that gave him the energry he needed to get most of the job done.
This then becomes like the time travel thing. Just fly into space for five minutes, get an extra tan and then take on anything as you’re practically unstoppable.
>Jason M. Bryant: I’ve lived through several power outages in my life, and I’ve never once heard of a police investigation into them. … I never saw anything about a police investigation of that, either.
Those probably didn’t result in lots of people dying. This one would have stopped pacemakers and other life-support gear. That sort of thing would get noticed.
>I felt like we waited twenty-five years (thirty? I’m not sure how long it’s been) and then sat in the theater for two and a half hours of a movie that really went nowhere.
And that’s the worst part of it. This film has been how many years in the making? And this mish-mash of half-baked characters and ludicrous plot elements is the best they could come up with? Consider SPIDER-MAN 2 which was, what? Three years after the first? And in many peoples’ mind even better than the deservedly sucessful first, with solid characterisations, as well as character development and an internally consistent plot. Next to that, after all these years of preparation, SUPERMAN RETURNS honestly feels to me like a poorly conceived, ill-thought-out second rater.
“Does anyone still do the red and green anymore?”
Just Robert Rodriguez, for some reason (and it’s red and blue, actually).
“Next to that, after all these years of preparation, SUPERMAN RETURNS honestly feels to me like a poorly conceived, ill-thought-out second rater.”
Funny, that’s how I felt about Spider-Man 2. Between Spider-Man taking off his mask in public every two minutes, to Dr. Octopus throwing a car at him when he needs him alive, to Aunt May’s painfully stupid “hero” speech, plus countless other poorly written and conceived scenes, it was just one incredibly dumb movie, and pretty much a retread of the first movie. And I wasn’t even that crazy about the first movie.
StarWolf: “Those probably didn’t result in lots of people dying. This one would have stopped pacemakers and other life-support gear. That sort of thing would get noticed.”
It would have been noticed, and it also would have been mentioned in the movie if it had happened. Lois spent a lot of time trying to convince Perry that the blackout was serious, yet she never said a word about death or disaster. Thus, it didn’t happen.
What happened in the movie was that everything stopped for a few seconds and then turned back on again. Maybe that’s not normal for an EMP, but that’s what happened in the movie. Superman didn’t run around stopping multiple disasters like he would later in the movie. The news report said that there was a problem with the shuttle separation, but didn’t say “we have reports of disasters from all over.” Lois didn’t mention deaths at all when she was trying to show that the blackout was an important story. Thus, there was no death from the blackout in the movie.
1Movie audiences are extremely used to someone getting knocked unconscious and standing up later with no permanent damage.
****
They are also extrmely used to good characters killing bad guys with little thought, angst on the part of the killer, or comment after the fact. Which is what you had here.
We already saw that kryptonite had no effect, so we know he doesn’t work the same way as a Kryptonian.
****
It seemed like it had no effect but the way Lex knew whose son it was and the way they zoomed in on Jason when Lex held the kryptonite close made me think that it was supposed to show Jason was at the least uncomfortable, even if it didn’t come across.
The glasses are simply a continuity glitch. The 1979 movie clearly shows him without glasses until he heads to the artic to “build” the Fortress of solitude.
****
I’m not sure it is a glitch. Singer said the two films were a vague history or vague background-they kinda happened, sort of, especially the first one, but this is not a direct sequel-he picked what he liked, and what he didn’t like he ignored or changed what he wanted.
“They are also extrmely used to good characters killing bad guys with little thought, angst on the part of the killer, or comment after the fact. Which is what you had here.”
They’re not used to little kids executing bad people, or else several people would not have mentioned it.
Kill the guy: some like it, some don’t.
Knock the guy out (and a little pain just for fun): everyone likes it.
Not a major point, it’s just a minor improvement they could have made. Rather insignificant compared to the bigger problems of the movie. Also insignificant compared to the successful parts of the movie, which there were plenty of.
1They’re not used to little kids executing bad people, or else several people would not have mentioned it.
*****
Having not seen any critics reviews even mention it, and hearing the crowd gasp and cheer when he revealed his power/lineage, I believe very few people even noticed it or gave a second thought to that guy, just like the movie didn’t (as in , it didn’t linger over his body, show the kid traumatized, or Lois traumatized).
Knock the guy out (and a little pain just for fun): everyone likes it.
****
Forgot to mention that no, everyone wouldn’t like it, because the number one complaint I here is “Why the heck does Superman have a son, how can they not let Richard know, how can Lois know its Supermans if Superman II counts, and I really don’t want to see Superboy in training in the sequels, nor do I want Superman to be either a homewrecker, or not be able to have a thing with Lois”
Those aren’t necessarily my complaints, but they are complaints, whether he killed or knocked out the guy. That is what you hear people debating and really arguing about, not some nameless thug that almost no one even remembers.
“and hearing the crowd gasp and cheer”
You’re going say that the crowd almost universally enjoyed the scene based on THAT?
The people cheering, yes, they liked it. The people who didn’t make any noise, nobody knows how they felt. The people who gasped, it’s just wishful thinking to say that all of those people liked it. People can gasp for lots of reasons, not all of them good.
As for your comments about the “everybody likes it” statement, I think you misinterpreted that. I didn’t mean to say that everyone would love the kid and everything about him. I meant that scene specifically.
Reviewers didn’t mention the scene because there were much bigger problems in the movie, as well as much bigger successes. If you want to say that this scene was not a *significant* problem, fine. I have no problem saying that this scene wasn’t a big deal. However, if you actually want to debate the merits of this scene, then I think it’s valid to say that they could have done it better.
Maybe Brian Singer made a pacifistic decision to not minimize the violence, like these guys are Wile E Coyote and can survive having pianos tossed at them.
I remember buying the Spider-Man annual Frank Miller drew where the Punisher shoots at Spider-Man, and damages his web-shooters without killing him. Is having bullets fly around in your story without fatalities the most principled depiction of gunfire?
Maybe the filmmakers couldn’t find an alternative that had as satisfying a story-impact as having the goon tell Lex Luthor that a 5-year-old kid killed one of his men.
Mike, I think that’s a very reasonable arguement. I still think that there was a better way of doing it, but I can see where Singer might be thinking along the lines that you suggested.
Also, having Jason accidently kill the goon is consistent with Singer’s focus on Clark Kent.
Reeve’s portrayal was of a masterful and confident Superman — who we as weaklings would naturally imagine a Superman to be like — pretending to be Clark Kent. But a man that powerful would be prone to breaking things if he doesn’t constantly measure his actions.
To another Krytonian, Kal-El would seem like an obsessive-compulsive trying not to break everything, trying not to make waves, qualifying everything he has to say — because asserting himself could mean hurting someone. To Earthlings, known throughout the galaxy for their rallying cry, “Bring it on!” the dainty Clark Kent is of course the subject of ridicule.
“Lois didn’t mention deaths at all when she was trying to show that the blackout was an important story. Thus, there was no death from the blackout in the movie.”
The only way the depicted phenomenon (which also took out stand-alone and wireless devices) could have failed to kill people – such as those with pacemakers – is if it was inexplicably selective like the one house in the neighbourhood to have water and power in ZONTAR: THING FROM VENUS.
StarWolf, pacemakers don’t work that way. It’s not a mater of instant death if they’re turned off for a minute. They supplement the natural function. That function is impaired in recipients, but rarely completely lost. So thousands of deaths certainly aren’t guaranteed.
However, sometimes people do die from regular blackouts because their life support equipment is off for several hours. Blackouts like the one in this report, which affected several states:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/15/power.outage/
Note that in that report the blackout started 30 hours ago, yet the investigators *still* aren’t sure what the cause is even though they’ve found downed power lines.
Disasters happen all the time, and the movie presented this one as being very tame. If they had showed massive numbers of people dying, I wouldn’t have argued. However, the movie acts as if that *didn’t* happen, and since this event was exceedingly short, it’s reasonable to believe what the movie showed us.
So yes, there would be an investigation. However, there’s no particular reason to think that Lois’ determined investigation wouldn’t make her the first one to track down Lex. Take it as an example of how good a reporter she is that she got there first.
And all of this gets away from the real point. It wasn’t necessary *emotionally*. A movie can’t stop teaching you something new about the characters or it slows down. A movie can’t stop advancing the plot or it slows down. Cops showing up at Lex’s door and being tricked into leaving or killed wouldn’t have shown us anything interesting about Lex and it wouldn’t have advanced the plot. Same thing with having the Feds show up asking about the stolen Russian weapon. Same thing with a dozen other plot holes that could have added a lot of useless time to the movie.
Yeah, it’s a little plothole. It’s just one that wasn’t worth filling.
Jason M. Bryant wrote (at July 6, 2006 10:18pm):
Yeah, it’s a little plothole. It’s just one that wasn’t worth filling.
My problem isn’t so much that we didn’t see the police investigating — we didn’t see the authorities because that’s not who the story’s about. My problem is that Perry was being unbelievably stupid for a newspaperman. This blackout stopped battery-powered devices. That’s not exactly what you’d call normal. Even if he didn’t want Lois on the story, he should’ve wanted someone on it. Okay, I’m willing to accept that he forgot in the excitement of seeing Superman back, but when Lois reminded him about the blackout, he could’ve said, “You’re right,” pointed at some random reporter and said, “You’re on the blackout.” When Lois protested, he simply reminds her that she’s the closest to Superman, and he wants the perspective from the woman who insisted the world didn’t need Superman, anyway. None of that changes the story one whit — Lois still goes after the blackout story without Perry’s approval and all — except that Perry doesn’t look like an inept fool.
“My problem is that Perry was being unbelievably stupid for a newspaperman.”
Well, he does give the blackout story to Clark, though Clark apparently didn’t want to step on Lois’ toes.
Other than that, I agree with you, Robin. Perry did seem quite blinded on the Blackout story. Overwhelmed by Superman’s return or not, he shouldn’t have dismissed it so easily. It does make Perry look less capable.
I’ve got one problem with the Superman movies, as much as I like them. The problem? Lex Luthor. He just doesn’t seem at all threatening to Superman. Hey, most times he woldn’t seem threatening to anyone without a stock portfolio. Thiunk about the biggest movies of the last thirty years. Star Wars. You say that to someone, more often than not the thing that pops into their head will be “Darth Vader.” Yu talk about the first Burton Batman–you see Nicholson’s Joker. Highlander–well, you either see Connery acting like a Spanish Egyptian, or you see the Kurgan. You think of Superman–and you see him fighting Daddy Warbucks. Luthor hasn’t worked for me since Legends of the Superfriends went off the air. Arming someone with a rapier wit to go against someone who’s, I don’t know, invulnerable to bullets? Did I hear someone say overmatch? Now, for Superbadguys, ZOD! Someone that you can actually believe will threaten the hero with something more than a few sly insults. A hero is only as good as the villain he faces. And the villians are USUALLY a lot more interesting than the heroes anyway. You know what to expect from the heroes, but the villains, they get to be ALLLLLL over the place. McKellan’s Magneto, in any of the X-movies, shows way more depth than I’ve ever seen out of Luthor, and there’s a REASON for what he does. (BTW, that’s the problem I think with the latest Star Wars movies. The bad guys were too MUCH “The Phantom Menace.” That and the dialogue.) Sure, heroes need to be believable, and a comic movie generally has to stick with the comic bad guys, but isn’t there SOMEONE who’s a little more threatening than Luthor? Anyone but Mtzlplk, PLEASE! I like meaty, deep bad guys. But maybe I’m just spoiled.
The only way the depicted phenomenon (which also took out stand-alone and wireless devices) could have failed to kill people – such as those with pacemakers – is if it was inexplicably selective like the one house in the neighbourhood to have water and power in ZONTAR: THING FROM VENUS.
Y’know, I loved that movie as a kid.
Hey, has anyone here seen Mallrats? This question re. Superman Returns and the kid, is bothering the hëll out of me.
Anyway, the scene in Mallrats goes as follows:
T.S. QUINT:
But, they’re engaged!
BRODIE BRUCE:
Doesn’t matter, it can’t happen.
T.S. QUINT:
Why not ? It’s bound to come up.
BRODIE BRUCE:
It’s impossible. Lois could never have Superman’s baby. Do you think her fallopian tubes could handle his sperm ? I guarantee he blows a load like a shotgun right through her back.
T.S. QUINT:
What about her womb ? You don’t think it’s strong enough to carry his child ?
BRODIE BRUCE:
Sure!
T.S. QUINT:
Why not?!
BRODIE BRUCE:
He’s an alien, for Christ’s Sake! His Kryptonian biological makeup is enhanced by Earth’s yellow sun. If Lois gets a tan, the kid could kick right through her stomach! Only someone like Wonder Woman has a strong enough uterus to carry his kid. Only way he could bang regular chicks is with a Kryptonite condom . . . but that would kill him.
T.S. QUINT:
How is it I go from the verge of hot Floridian sex with Brandi to man of steel coital debates with you in the Food Court?
BRODIE BRUCE:
Cookie stand isn’t part of the Food Court…
etc. etc. But, you all know what point I’m getting at. I mean, COME ON!