(Close Window)
Topic: Superman Returns!
Message: Posted by: johnnymystic (Jun 27, 2006 06:33PM)
Oh my Gawd...I've got advance tickets for the special showing of Superman Returns, tonight June 27th 10pm

I'm all giddy with excitment!

I'll let you all now how it is...oh man I can't wait!

I Am Johnny Mystic
Message: Posted by: Mercury52 (Jun 27, 2006 07:21PM)
I'm also going to a 10 pm showing tonight. Looking forward to it. Not quite as much as I have to Spidey and Batman recently, but I still think it'll be a good time.

Kevin
Message: Posted by: Cliffg37 (Jun 27, 2006 08:59PM)
My wife explianed to me whay I should go tonight, and I am really mad since she was right! I have to wait till thursday. Bummer.
Message: Posted by: Phil Thomas (Jun 27, 2006 09:17PM)
Can't wait to see this one. I'm on the edge of my seat.
Message: Posted by: johnnymystic (Jun 28, 2006 12:26AM)
Oh man...there was so much action!

Very impressive movie indeed, Superman Dies!!!!!

Just joking!

The effects were awesome and you could really connect with Superman...at least I did, as a matter of fact my underwear is now on the outside of my pants, just like when I was a kid. :)

This one is a keeper!

Johnny
Message: Posted by: phase27 (Jun 28, 2006 02:44AM)
I just got back from the special showing tonite and was blown away. I was really happy that this didn't let me down like some other recent movies this summer. Anyone who hasnt seen this yet go see it as soon as you can. You wont be dissapointed.
Message: Posted by: cardone (Jun 28, 2006 07:15AM)
I am going today at 1 :30 pm I have been waiting for this movie since the last one ....15 20 years ago?
It is getting great reviews and the trailers look fantastic......lets see.......supes is #1 in the superhero club !
Message: Posted by: Mercury52 (Jun 28, 2006 11:52AM)
Yep, great renewal of the old franchise with Christopher Reeve. They kept the John Williams theme, similar opening titles.

Good casting choices, overall just good. A very quick 2 and a half hours. I wouldn't have minded if they'd gone to 3 hours with it.

I really liked Kevin Spacey as Luthor. Quirky and lighthearted at times, pure evil when he needed to be.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jun 28, 2006 12:23PM)
So I assume it turns out Routh can act somewhat?
Message: Posted by: Jim Wilder (Jun 28, 2006 01:06PM)
Disclaimer: I enjoyed the movie.

Even though the movie was well made, I am displeased with the newest trend/way of making movies in regards to CGI. I am not here to make a comparison of the Christopher Reeve films and the newest in any regard other than special effects.

Since the latest Star Wars films, there have been too many scenes that look like glorified cartoons. And I certainly do not intend to take away from the technical advances in the industry and the capabilities these advances have provided. However, in the case of this movie, most every time Superman is in action (except with the car and globe/planet), he looks plastic. He looks unrealistic. Now compare that to the Reeve films. In my opinion, if someone could fly, I think it would look exactly the way it was portrayed in those films... think in terms of when Superman flies up, catches Lois, then the helicopter, and then flies away after he gives the PSA about the safety of flying. I am not concerned with the how as much as it looks like those events were really happening in real time with real human beings... not techinically sharp graphic cartoons. In Superman Returns, every time Superman was in action, my mind immediately shifted away from what was happening and to thinking about how the scene looked computer generated.

Understand that I am not a technical person about the reality factor. My complaint is about the overusage versus.... stuntmen/actors? Again, I don't know what methods were used in the Reeve films, but it looked more realistic than the newest edition.

(Sidenote: One thing to watch for those who haven't seen the movie yet... When Lois and the kid are on Luthor's boat, watch her hand with the ring when she is holding the kid. Watch the ring jump back and forth from her middle to third finger about 3 or 4 times.)

This is a similar reason (CGI) that I did not like the Hulk movie, it was too much CGI to the degree that I felt I was watching a cartoon. And perhaps, I don't know this, but perhaps the movie is hoping to win the approval of the technical crowd who can really appreciate what is, I'm sure, a very extensive process for making the impossible scenes seem possible.

But it does bring to mind a brilliant article I read by a dear and departed friend about Elvis and his Memphis Mafia. Elvis began to suffer from the, "that's cool Elvis" syndrome. He had achieved such greatness that the people around him began to approve of every idea he had as being cool.... "Hey guys, let's hang shag carpet on the wall and ceiling!" "Yeah... that's cool Elvis."

It might have been some benefit to say, "You know... that's a really stupid idea Elvis."

The same thing is happening to movies. "Hey, I want to create a character that is quirky and completely computer animated and call him JarJar!" "Yeah... that's cool Lucas."

No it isn't.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 28, 2006 01:20PM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-28 13:23, mandrake01 wrote:
So I assume it turns out Routh can act somewhat? [/quote]

Imagine a soap star working against a green screen in a harness waiting for next SFX shot hoping he hits his marks right...
Message: Posted by: revlovejoy (Jun 28, 2006 01:56PM)
This film is new enough for the younger audience to connect with, but connected enough to the S1 and S2 franchise to make those of us 30 and up who remember the Reeve movies as the gold standard, happy. I loved the retaining of the themes, titles, and even some lines from the first movies. It is obvious that Spacey really studied Hackman's mannerisms as well. Though it's not an impression, Spacey is too good for that, it's definitely connected.

I wasn't as disturbed by the CGI as Jim. I am not sure how you

SPOILER ALERT.......





lift an island (pre-continent) into space, or rescue a plane without some special effects.
Message: Posted by: Jim Wilder (Jun 28, 2006 02:07PM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-28 14:56, revlovejoy wrote:
I wasn't as disturbed by the CGI as Jim. I am not sure how you

SPOILER ALERT.......
[/quote]

I AM NOT DISTURBED!!! j/k

No, I know what you mean about the special effects in terms of use for the large impossibilities. However, think to Superman 3 where the scene involved Superman freezing the top layer of a pond/lake and flying it over the fire... or where he used his heat vision to take off the top of a mountain and plug up a volcano prior to massive eruption (Superman 4). Those were just as large, and used special effects of the time, but to me, the scenes looked much more realistic and less computer generated. And Superman didn't appear to be wearing a thick layer of base.
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Jun 28, 2006 03:05PM)
I agree with Jim that some CGI distracts from the realism. I avoided the Hulk for the same reasons. It looked like a cartoon character.

I have Star Wars 1&2 on DVD and was stunned to see the scenes that were CGI. You could not tell the difference between the real Christopher Lee and his acrobatic CGI clone used in the sabre duel scenes. Lee has knee problems and can't do any of those quick turns or jumps and a CGI stand in was used. Now that's CGI done right!

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: rossmacrae (Jun 28, 2006 04:17PM)
TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS it cost, they say.

There are still hungry people in this country, not to mention the rest of the world.

[*Sigh...*]
Message: Posted by: cardone (Jun 28, 2006 04:58PM)
The Movie was wonderfullllllll....... I belived a man could fly...... some parts were jerkin my tears....
Message: Posted by: Brian Proctor (Jun 28, 2006 06:02PM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-28 17:17, rossmacrae wrote:
TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS it cost, they say.

There are still hungry people in this country, not to mention the rest of the world.

[*Sigh...*]
[/quote]

If it makes you happy, I will give up one hamburger today and still go see this movie tonight. :)


I have been waiting a decade for this thing!

I'm excited!
Message: Posted by: NeoMagic (Jun 28, 2006 06:26PM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-28 16:05, Timothy Drake wrote:

I agree with Jim that some CGI distracts from the realism...[/quote]

Realism? You mean in a movie about a man who flies (with his underpants on the outside) and another about a big green hulk of a thing!? :bg: :bg:
Message: Posted by: phase27 (Jun 28, 2006 07:19PM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-28 14:20, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-06-28 13:23, mandrake01 wrote:
So I assume it turns out Routh can act somewhat? [/quote]

Imagine a soap star working against a green screen in a harness waiting for next SFX shot hoping he hits his marks right...
[/quote]

I don't know if anyone knows this but Christopher Reeves was a soap actor before doing superman in the early 70's...
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jun 28, 2006 07:37PM)
If I wore my Sumpeman t-shrit would I get laughed at?

A fat aged superman?
Message: Posted by: Brian Proctor (Jun 28, 2006 08:23PM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-28 20:19, phase27 wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-06-28 14:20, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-06-28 13:23, mandrake01 wrote:
So I assume it turns out Routh can act somewhat? [/quote]

Imagine a soap star working against a green screen in a harness waiting for next SFX shot hoping he hits his marks right...
[/quote]

I don't know if anyone knows this but Christopher Reeves was a soap actor before doing superman in the early 70's...
[/quote]


The similarities between Reeve and Routh are building up like Kennedy and Lincoln.
Message: Posted by: Platt (Jun 28, 2006 10:51PM)
Superman II was far superior to this. As much as I like Spacey, Gene Hackman (in one of his best roles ever) was sorely missed. The effects were killer but the storyline suffered. They went for way too much. Super II will always be a true classic. How can you beat the man of steel taking on Zod and company. This? I'm not even sure what transpired.

It seemed there were a lot of holes in the plot. I was quite tired as I saw a late night showing so perhaps I missed some things. Can someone help answer the following questions?

spoiler alert:

How did Superman lose his strength at the time Luther punched him? (cyptonite? where? In the ocean?)
How did he get his strength back? (because lois removed the cryptonite? then how did he first lose it?)
How does lois remember sleeping with superman? He kissed her at the end of Superman II making her forget their time together.
Who was the guy with the machine gun who pegs superman in the eye? What was his deal?
Message: Posted by: johnnymystic (Jun 29, 2006 12:02AM)
Theres were holes in the plot for a reason...Part Two and mahap even deeper emotional plot twists for part two.

I'm going to see this again this weekend and oh man I can't wait for the sequel.

And yes this movie borught some tear to my eyes...great friggen movie man, or should I say Superman!!!

johnny
Message: Posted by: Platt (Jun 29, 2006 12:17AM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-29 01:02, johnnymystic wrote:
Theres were holes in the plot for a reason...Part Two and mahap even deeper emotional plot twists for part two.

johnny
[/quote]

Oh, that clears up everything.
Message: Posted by: daffydoug (Jun 29, 2006 04:47AM)
I too, am one of those who avoided the Hulk because it looked like a glorified cartoon, but this is one I will surely not pass up.
Message: Posted by: Raymond Singson (Jun 29, 2006 09:52AM)
This movie was GREAT for any fans of the original Superman saga. So many references to the old 1970's movies made me reminisce about the magic of the original movie. They used the classic music that made me all giddy along with the famous opening titles. It was a great, great movie. If you plan on seeing it, you HAVE to watch the original two Superman films to get all the subtle humor.

With that said--

I don't know how I feel about the whole triangle thing going on though. Kind of turned me off for a bit. I might go see it again just to make myself feel better. Ha. One would think that after film disasters like Pearl Harbor and others, writers would acknowledge that love triangles just don't belong in action movies... ESPECIALLY one as familiar as Superman. What do they plan on doing with this?

Ray.
Message: Posted by: Platt (Jun 29, 2006 11:07AM)
So once again, can anyone answer my questions:

spoiler alert:

How did Superman lose his strength at the time Luther punched him? (cyptonite? where? In the ocean?)
How did he get his strength back? (because lois removed the cryptonite? then how did he first lose it?)
How does lois remember sleeping with superman? He kissed her at the end of Superman II making her forget their time together.
Who was the guy with the machine gun who pegs superman in the eye? What was his deal?

Thanks.
Message: Posted by: johnnymystic (Jun 29, 2006 12:04PM)
The rocks (new continent) that grew from the ocean were imbedded with kryptonite, it was everywhere.

johnny


Posted: Jun 29, 2006 1:47pm
----------------------------------------------------
How does Lois remember sleepiing with Superman?

Um, lets see...she ended up with a baby in her belly...do you think? ;)

johnny
Message: Posted by: Platt (Jun 29, 2006 01:00PM)
Yes, she did end up with his baby. But due to the minderasing kiss, she shouldn't know where the baby came from. Also, the little kid showed no signs of superhuman strength until midway through the movie.

If the rocks spread kryptonite everywhere, how did superman get his powers back when the kryptonite was removed from his back. Wouldn't the bigger picture (kryptonite spread everywhere) keep him weakened?

And again, who was the superhuman guy shooting bullets out of the machine gun?
Message: Posted by: Mercury52 (Jun 29, 2006 01:08PM)
SPOILERS TO ANSWER PLATT...

Yes, remember how Luthor shot the crystal into the ocean inside the tube of Kryptonite? The whole new continent took on traits of Kryptonite.

He gets his strength back, yes, when Lois finally removes the last bit of Kryptonite from his body. Also, remember, he flies up into space briefly to catch some sun rays to "recharge" before going back down and using his heat vision on the continent.

Lois never does say she remembers sleeping with him. When Richard asks, she says it was a n atricle she wrote. I guess we have to take that at face value. I also truly believe that she thinks Richard is the father, until the piano-throwing bit. Then it surely dawns on her.

I'm not sure about the machine gun guy. I wasn't sure if he was one of Luthor's distractions, or if he was just a crazy villain that Supey had to stop.

Ultimately, we have to remember that this is a sci-fi/fantasy film based on comic characters. If we try to make it fit with logic 100% of the time, we may as well give up on it.

I feel that ya either give in and enjoy it for what it is, or nitpick it to death, starting with the fact that pretty much the whole character is an impossible situation.

Kevin
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 29, 2006 01:46PM)
Kevin/Mercury, have you read Alan Moore's [i]Miracleman[/i]?
Message: Posted by: Brian Proctor (Jun 29, 2006 02:25PM)
The guy with the machine gun was simply a bank robber with a machine gun. Not superhuman as far as I could tell.

I had the most fun ever going to a movie last night. Superman Returns was incredible. I can't wait to see what happens with Jason and Clark in the next one. The ending was really touching. I bet I was the loudest one in the theater whenever supes flew across the scene. And how about that Dodger Stadium landing?!?! Great stuff!!!

Brian
Message: Posted by: Mercury52 (Jun 29, 2006 03:04PM)
Jonathan, nope, haven't read it. I'll look into it though to see the relation to the discussion at hand.

Kevin
Message: Posted by: Platt (Jun 29, 2006 04:48PM)
So I guess superman was far enough away from the kryptonite built island when lois removed the kryptonite from the back, he was okay.

I strongly disagree with the notion that a sci/fi fantasy picture doesn't have to be cohesive and logical. I urge anyone to who hasn't seen superman II to run out and watch it. It's everything a superhero movie should be. I truly believe nothing's come close to capturing its magic.

I also wanted to add that I'm always right and my opinion rules.
Message: Posted by: Raymond Singson (Jun 29, 2006 08:20PM)
[b]How did Superman lose his strength at the time Luther punched him? (cyptonite? where? In the ocean?) [/b]

First off-- Platt-- your opinion may rule and you may always be right... but if you're a true Superman fan, you'd recognize that you spelled Kryptonite with a [b]C[/b]???? Even Superman corrects the mistake with Lois in the original film during the first interview! But that aside... yes, the entire pre-continent was embedded with small pieces of the green radioactive rock.

[b]How did he get his strength back? (because lois removed the cryptonite? then how did he first lose it?)[/b]

When the plane was airborne, there were no traces of Kryptonite anywhere else in the plane. I'm unfortunately not Kryptonian, so I can't really determine how far away I have to be from the stuff in order to stop feeling its effects. But Superman was still weak-- which is why he flew up to revive his powers from the Sun as his father taught him.

[b]How does lois remember sleeping with superman? He kissed her at the end of Superman II making her forget their time together. [/b]

I agree with what's been said. She realizes her son has superhuman powers... If I were her living in Metropolis and had a mutual relationship with the Man of Steel, I'd probably put two and two together. And to follow the traditional movie cliche-- love conquers all... Even Kryptonian Forget-Me Kisses.

[b]Who was the guy with the machine gun who pegs superman in the eye? What was his deal?[/b]

He was a petty bank robber. The scene was supposed to resemble the bank robbers from the original Superman movie to get us all reacquainted with Super's powers. How AWESOME were the special effects??

*****

So yeah... here's my beef. When does the movie take place? According to the writers and producers, it apparently takes place five years after the second Superman movie starring Christopher Reeve. But I noticed there were classic automobiles from the 1930's and 40's at Lex's new crib I nthe beginning of the movie. And if the film takes place five years after the modern day of Superman II, there still wouldn't be any camera phones.

Ah well. All in good fun.

Ray.
Message: Posted by: Platt (Jun 29, 2006 08:58PM)
Thanks. That helps me. As I said, I was tired. But didn't the gunman get shot multiple times by the police without being harmed? That's why I figured he had superhuman strength.

Ray, I never claimed to be a true superman fan. In fact I've never once read a comic book. I just happen to love the movie Superman II. That's all. I have seen every superman movie and II reigns supreme. Without Superman II, I'm not sure Reeve would even be a household name. The franchise would certainly be a joke. Superman I was a good, but certainly not great movie. Three and four were beyond embarrasing. Even Singer knew to forget those ever happened. And now comes Superman Returns. Beyond the special effects,where's the magic?

I don't know what it was, but they got it perfect with II. It was like a classic fairytale. Simple and hard hitting. The best superhero film of all time!
Message: Posted by: Raymond Singson (Jun 29, 2006 09:05PM)
IMHO-- The new Spiderman movies are outfreakingstanding...

Ray.
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Jun 29, 2006 09:08PM)
I just returned from seeing the film. I had really hoped they'd capture some of that magic I felt as a teenager watching the first film years ago. The first Superman film was the first comic book movie to come into the real world with class and success. If not for that film there would be no Batman or Spiderman films today.

Remakes are always a touchy thing.....how do you update a classic film and make it modern without spoiling the magic the classic held. So many recent " updates " have promised everything and ended up being an emotionless parade of CGI graphics. My friends warned me not to get my hopes up with this one as they had seen me so disappointed in recent remakes. That popcorn chewin, movie lovin teenager in me seemed destined to become only a memory.

Well he's back baby!!!! THIS MOVIE ROCKS!!!!!! Hollywood finally figured it out!!!! We like a story dam it! Give us something to cheer in our hearts rather than just our eyes.

You'd have to experienced the magic in '79 to really appreciate what I am talking about here. Regardless you'll enjoy this film. I sat through the closing credits waiting for that most important class act I had hoped for and.........there it was .." This film is respectfully dedicated to Christopher and Dana Reeve." I still have a lump in my throat.

On a more light hearted note... did anyone else recognise the bartender in the film????? Also was that a cameo appearance by Richard Branson as a shuttle pilot?? During the closing credits I was distracted and turned back to see what I thought was a glimpse of " sir richard branson" as it scrolled off screen. Just wondering if anyone else saw Branson in the pilots seat?

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: Brian Proctor (Jun 29, 2006 09:14PM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-29 21:58, Platt wrote:
Thanks. That helps me. As I said, I was tired. But didn't the gunman get shot multiple times by the police without being harmed? That's why I figured he had superhuman strength.
[/quote]

I believe it was a bulletproof vest.


[quote]
On 2006-06-29 22:08, Timothy Drake wrote:
In a more light hearted note... did anyone else recognise the bartender in the film????? Also was that a cameo appearance by Richard Branson as a shuttle pilot?? During the closing credits I was distracted and turned back to see what I thought was a glimpse of " sir richard branson" as it scrolled off screen. Just wondering if anyone else saw Branson in the pilots seat?
Best,
Tim
[/quote]

You betcha I recognized the bartender. None other than the original Jimmy Olsen, Jack Larson. And did you recognize the elderly woman in the beginning of the film? It was Noel Neil. This film paid so much respect to the last seven decades of Superman.


And where is our fellow Superman nut Corey Harris on all this???
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Jun 29, 2006 09:23PM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-29 22:14, Brian Proctor wrote:
You betcha I recognized the bartender. None other than the original Jimmy Olsen, Jack Larson. And did you recognize the elderly woman in the beginning of the film? It was Noel Neil. This film paid so much respect to the last seven decades of Superman.

[/quote]

Would Noel Neil be Lois from the old television series? I thougth I saw her in a crowd shot. Respect...yup..thats the perfect word.

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 29, 2006 09:41PM)
I'm really hoping that this is going to be good. Better than the original travesties featuring Reeve. Not that Reeve did a bad job mind you but they did far too much tinkering with the original legend for my taste and the special effects were awful!!! superman never flew but floated from place to place and don't get me started on the whole flying around the world to make it go back in time nonsense. they lost me from the get go by making Krypton some sort of crystal planet instead of the marvelously deco place it was in the comic. there was no Superboy to make Lex Bald (thus giving Lex motivation to hate Superman). Superman fails to be responsible for his foster parents deaths and the Phantom Zone is another dimension not some twanky record album floating through space. Lex would never wear a toupee and Superman built the Fortress of Solitude for himself instead of having Jor El grow it for him like some over reactive Magic Rocks. I'm really hoping that this one treats the material with a little more respect.
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Jun 29, 2006 09:55PM)
Don't see this movie then. Its a modern tribute to the Richard Donner film. I liked that film and that's why I liked this one as well.

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jun 30, 2006 04:14AM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-28 14:20, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-06-28 13:23, mandrake01 wrote:
So I assume it turns out Routh can act somewhat? [/quote]

Imagine a soap star working against a green screen in a harness waiting for next SFX shot hoping he hits his marks right...
[/quote]

um, that was Reeve! I didn't think Routh had been in a soap, I thought he was a male model.
Message: Posted by: daffydoug (Jun 30, 2006 05:03AM)
For me, tonight's the night...
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jun 30, 2006 06:32AM)
I enjoyed it and thanks for not spoiling it!
Message: Posted by: Cliffg37 (Jun 30, 2006 08:47AM)
I loved the movie!

I knew I would love it from the moment the movie started. John WIlliams classic theme back in outer space just like the old days. WOW.




(Spolier Alert)




I am sorry about the kid. He is little more than a plot complication. Think about it. If he has even half his dad's powers, then in the next movie and so forth he will either have to be explained away (oh he's off at summer camp) or be part of the story.

Even so I loved the film. Kevin Spacey was brilliant.

Kate Bosworth was alright. The problem with Lois is that her character is a pair of opposites. She is strong and daring but weak and vulnerable. Also she is a real b-itch and yet we love her and want her to be ok. That is a lousy role to give an actress. Bosworth was OK. My favorite lois of all time was probably Terri Hatcher, though she wasn't nasty enough to Clark.

Frank Langella was good as Perry.

Question: is Glen Ford still alive? The Doctor who took lois to see Superman in the hospital looked a lot like him.
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Jun 30, 2006 09:04AM)
I just checked with IMD and it was Richard Branson at the shuttle controls.

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 30, 2006 11:55AM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-30 09:47, Cliffg37 wrote:

I am sorry about the kid. He is little more than a plot complication. Think about it. If he has even half his dad's powers, then in the next movie and so forth he will either have to be explained away (oh he's off at summer camp) or be part of the story.

[/quote]

The scriptwriter has obviously never read Larry Nivens essay "Man of Steel Woman of Kleenex" which explains why Superman could never have a physical relationship with Lois Lane.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 30, 2006 12:38PM)
Payne, be nice.

The movie is not about Superman. It's a tribute to the Donner films with Chris Reeves.

Like a Brady Bunch remake movie, not about family values but about Marsha Marsha Marsha.
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (Jun 30, 2006 06:16PM)
Been a Superman fan since the 1940's! He has always been America's Hero. Untill now. Truth Justice and The American Way, always a part of the Superman legend was purposely altered for the latest film for PC reasons and because the writers, director etc. want's him to be considered a hero of the Earth not America. It is now spoken in the film as "Truth Justice And All That Stuff"

So, personally the Truth of it and the Justice and the American Way is I'll spend my money next month on 'Snakes On A Plane'.

I know most of you don't give a hoot...but I'm fed up with Hollywood...100%

Here's the story with many quotes: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/film_reporter_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002764635


"In fact, Dougherty and Harris never even considered including "the American way" in their screenplay. After the wunderkind writing duo ("X2: X-Men United") conceived "Superman's" story with director Bryan Singer during a Hawaiian vacation, they penned their first draft together and intentionally omitted what they considered to be a loaded and antiquated expression. That decision stood throughout the 140-day shoot in Australia, where the pair remained on-set to provide revisions and tweaks.

"We were always hesitant to include the term 'American way' because the meaning of that today is somewhat uncertain...So, you play the movie in a foreign country, and you say, 'What does he stand for? -- truth, justice and the American way.' I think a lot of people's opinions of what the American way means outside of this country are different from what the line actually means (in Superman lore) because they are not the same anymore," Harris says. "And (using that line) would taint the meaning of what he is saying."


Good Grief...give me a break!!

I'm sure it's an entertaining movie though...carry on...
Message: Posted by: Cliffg37 (Jun 30, 2006 07:25PM)
Doug you have me beet by 20 years, I have been a superman fan from the 60's. He will always fight and stand for truth, justice and the American way. If that sounds corney to anyone, well fine, so it is corney. He may not stand for the blured version of what the American way is right NOW, but the charater of Superman allways stands for what is RIGHT. In my book that is the American way, and worth all of us real people taking a stand for.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 30, 2006 09:56PM)
Cliff,

The guy is an illegal alien who goes out wearing matching boots and panties. And a cape. He's unmarried and has a "secret identity". By some standards he could be taken to represent a position that is far off to the left.

:)
Message: Posted by: johnnymystic (Jul 1, 2006 12:26AM)
As 'We' all know, Superman DOES fight for Truth, Justice and the American way...so as long as 'We' know that what does it matter?

Do you really want more people to hate us for silly reasons such as comic book hero's???

I say the writers made a realistic choice in this 'Modern' world we live in.

This movie still rocks and was awesome from the get go!

I Am Johnny Mystic
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Jul 1, 2006 04:02AM)
Johnny, [url=http://www.cafepress.com/supes?pid=4640032]here are a few things to help people remember[/url] the missing part of the phrase!

Besides, how is the direction supposed to score any points in Hollywood if he looks like he's praising the American way? Let's not forget that Hollywood thinks that "American Way" means nothing more than NASCAR, Jesus and opression.
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (Jul 1, 2006 07:35AM)
JM says"Do you really want more people to hate us for silly reasons such as comic book hero's???"

I really can't be bothered WHY some hate the US...the American Way is why they come here by the millions...why they look to our output, even the creative output as the gold standard. We should lower our standards and expectations and goals and NOT hold up our accomplishnments to our peril. Superman was born of the American Dream. The American Way...Metropolis does not represent some 3rd world crap hole...it is gleaming American Steel, albeit with all it's inherent problems...we already garner hatered and jelousy just by BEING.

"In a story written by Joe Kelly in 2001, called ``What's So Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way?'' Superman is challenged by ultra-violent ``superhero'' Manchester Black who thinks the Man of Steel is living in a dream world where a clear line exists between right and wrong.

``You know what, Black?'' Superman replies. ``I wouldn't have it any other way. Dreams save us. Dreams lift us up and transform us. And on my soul, I swear: Until my dream of a world where dignity, honor and justice becomes the reality we all share, I'll never stop fighting -- ever."

THAT is not the French way or the Russian Way or the Libian way or the Saudi Arabian Way or the Chinese Way...it is the American Way...and worth stating and worth being heard over and over.

Superman was created to represent the GOOD and the HEART and SPIRIT of the American Way...to push that aside as if ashamed, to proclaim it merely 'other stuff' is just stupid and the worst attribute of political correctness.

Less seriously but a point none the less...

Now can we please get those "M...F...Snakes off the M... F...Plane!?" or should Samuel L. Jacksons dialog be changed because somewhere they worship snakes and won't understand his motivation??
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jul 1, 2006 11:04AM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-30 12:55, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-06-30 09:47, Cliffg37 wrote:

I am sorry about the kid. He is little more than a plot complication. Think about it. If he has even half his dad's powers, then in the next movie and so forth he will either have to be explained away (oh he's off at summer camp) or be part of the story.

[/quote]

The scriptwriter has obviously never read Larry Nivens essay "Man of Steel Woman of Kleenex" which explains why Superman could never have a physical relationship with Lois Lane.
[/quote]

Actually, he may have. In "Superman II" the hologram of Lara (Supe's mother) explained that he could only love a human woman if he gave up his super powers. fortunately, for the franchise, he gets them back!
Message: Posted by: Brian Proctor (Jul 1, 2006 03:40PM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-30 12:55, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-06-30 09:47, Cliffg37 wrote:

I am sorry about the kid. He is little more than a plot complication. Think about it. If he has even half his dad's powers, then in the next movie and so forth he will either have to be explained away (oh he's off at summer camp) or be part of the story.

[/quote]

The scriptwriter has obviously never read Larry Nivens essay "Man of Steel Woman of Kleenex" which explains why Superman could never have a physical relationship with Lois Lane.
[/quote]

Guys, were talking about a guy who can fly! It is a comic book character. What prevents him from having a kid? Just have enjoy it! :)
Message: Posted by: daffydoug (Jul 1, 2006 09:25PM)
Well, I am back from the theater, and I have to say, this is two thumbs up! They really did it right this time.

My observations: The actors were great, but the fellow who played Perry White was too toned down and mellow for my taste. I just loved the way Jackie did it in the first movie with that firey, type A personality "I'm the boss" DRIVE! I missed that.

Kevin Spacey as Lex was good too, but I miss Hackman's, biting, sarcastic way of delivering lines. There was something special about that that is hard to replicate.

But as the movie went on, the true evil in Luthor came out, and the scene where they viciously kicked Supes was very well acted. The plot device of having him stab Superman in the back with a home made Kryptonite dagger was a perfect way of showing how much deep, seathing hate he really had for the man of steel. This worked for me..in fact, MANY things about the movie worked. When Superman is down and practically groveling at Luthors feet, it twisted me up badly on the inside. To see Supermman in such an abject position was very hard to watch. Painful. It was just painful.

But the director had a way of taking you from one emotion to another on a totally different level. For instance, I was really touched by the scene where Superman was watching his son sleeping, and saying things that a father would only say to a son. it worked very well, and Brandon showed himself to be a fine actor just by that scene alone.

Ahhh yes! Brandon! No doubt, he is THE Superman for this generation. He contributed so much to the role. The scenes where he is Clark are SPOOKY in his eerie resemblance to Reeve in that role. It's uncanny. He had the looks AND the mannerisims down to a "t". He was truly Reeves doppleganger in that resect, and I don't think the casting directors could have done better if they had searched another ten years. Brandon was it, man.

Favorite scene? I will never forget the scene where the scum tries to shoot him in the most vulnerable spot, his eyeball. When the bullet bounces off, flattened, he gives the thug this perfect little "Do you now realize how f****d you are?", smile. I LOVED it!

Saddest scene? I teared up when they were doing the scene about the newspaper article about "the world doesn't need Superman anymore."

And Lois never DID get to smoke that cigarette!

I wasn't too happy, though, about how they just left Lex on the island. After the beating he gave Supes, I was just burning to see him come back and knock Luthor's $%^#$ head off. But it never happened.

But I figure they are saving it for the sequel. So I'll let that slide for now.

And one more thing. They brought back Reeves memory in a very special way, at least for me.

The action scenes were edge of your seat perfect, and the C.G. didn't really bother me that much. It was well done enough that I didn't notice it.

At times, I almost thought they made Superman TOO human, too vulnerable...but I suppose that without him having a weakness for the villain to exploit, there would be very little in the way of conflict for the script. If he was totally omnipotent, we surely could have never related to him to start with. As it is, there is enough of our humanity in him that we can feel with him, and we all know that makes for excellent theatre. Otherwise, it might just end up being BORING. After all, you must have more than just action scenes for the audience to relate to.

Still, at times I think at times the movie was missing some of the elements of "FUN" that the first one had, (Yes, Reeves sparkled and seemed to be enjoying himself so very much of the time) but I suppose as a director, one has to make editing decisions and such, and you just can't have it all.

All in all, though, I really loved the movie, and I am very much anticipating the sequel with enthusiasm and alacrity.

BTW, I heard that the Superman outfit alone had a price tag of over sixty grand. Geeesh!
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Jul 2, 2006 04:46AM)
A few questions:

1) How in the world does Lois survive getting impregnated by Superman? You'd think she'd be vaporized by the very act!

2) Assuming she somehow survives the first part, how does she survive Superbaby kicking? I'm thinking that within the first 3 or 4 kicks, the baby has performed its own caesarian.

3) Does this kid being fathered by Superman mean that the classic pure-as-the-driven-snow Superman has been tossed out, along with "the American way?"

4) What changes have happened to Superman that make it possible for him to land on an entire island made of Kryptonite? The past Superman couldn't even approach it without losing his powers, or worse!

5) With all forms of Kryptonite, the radiation is what is having the effect on Superman. Has Lex Luthor become so dumb that his master plan is to stab his arch enemy who's already dying of radiation poisoning?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jul 2, 2006 08:53AM)
[quote]
On 2006-07-02 05:46, Scott Cram wrote:
A few questions:

1) How in the world does Lois survive getting impregnated by Superman? You'd think she'd be vaporized by the very act!
[/quote]

Supes didn't have super powers when they had sex.

[quote]
2) Assuming she somehow survives the first part, how does she survive Superbaby kicking? I'm thinking that within the first 3 or 4 kicks, the baby has performed its own caesarian.
[/quote]

Apparently the kids powers only manifested themselves in a moment of crisis. Not only was the kid <not> superpowered in utero, he seemed actually sickly in a normal situation. (Probably the result of two dissimalar biologies trying to co-exist.)

[quote]
3) Does this kid being fathered by Superman mean that the classic pure-as-the-driven-snow Superman has been tossed out, along with "the American way?"
[/quote]

Probably. But it's the 21st century, get over it.

[quote]
4) What changes have happened to Superman that make it possible for him to land on an entire island made of Kryptonite? The past Superman couldn't even approach it without losing his powers, or worse!
[/quote]

The island wasn't "made" of kryptonite, it had kryptonite laced through it.

[quote]
5) With all forms of Kryptonite, the radiation is what is having the effect on Superman. Has Lex Luthor become so dumb that his master plan is to stab his arch enemy who's already dying of radiation poisoning?
[/quote]

That was a moment of pure unreasoning anger. For Luthor, it's not enough to kick a man while he's down, he has to literally "twist the knife."
Message: Posted by: daffydoug (Jul 2, 2006 09:22AM)
The last statement sums it up nice. As I said in my post, his anger and hatred and need for revenge has been seething for at least fourty or fifty years now...when he finally does get to release it, his action is vicious beyond words.
Message: Posted by: Eric Buss (Jul 2, 2006 12:15PM)
I saw it IMAX 3-D last night... Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Jul 2, 2006 12:25PM)
What parts were in 3D? I understand only 20 minutes of it were but which 20 minutes?

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (Jul 2, 2006 12:42PM)
Regarding Superman's IMAX 3-D...this movie was adjusted (electronically) from regular to the 3-D format.
Looks fantastic...but
just imagine how cool it will be when the intial digital photography and FX etc. will be specifically for 3-D aspects as Cameron, Lucas and many other producers are planning for, for their major releases....though rumors are that lots of older films (Star Wars etc.) will be prepped and reconfigured for a 3-D release as well.

Neato.

Supes 3-D was mostly the crashing plane near the open and a couple of other scenes.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jul 2, 2006 06:35PM)
I certainly hope that there will be non-3D versions of the movies made as well otherwise I'll just have to give up going to the movies. I only have one working etye and all the various versions of 3D I've experienced so far are unwatchable as viewing them with one eye makes them either fuzzy or too dim to see. I can't see the real world in 3D so why would I want my movies that way either?
Message: Posted by: daffydoug (Jul 3, 2006 05:00AM)
Good point...you'll just have to keep your eye on the scene.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Jul 3, 2006 12:50PM)
Marvel is currently making plans to make a Captain America movie. I hope they don't give it to the team that made "Superman Returns". I'm not sure a movie called, "Captain All That Stuff," would do well at the box office.
Message: Posted by: Pete Biro (Jul 3, 2006 01:45PM)
Captain Marvel was my favorite...

I had a draft of a screen play for Christopher Reeve to be in a Superman film in a wheelchair. A couple of major movie guys liked the idea.

Basically Reeve played Superman (using a few bits from earlier films when he was healthy) and is SEVERELY INJURED and winds up in a wheelchair. The basic plot was to SEARCH for a new person to take over his powers.

A candidate is found. Reeve, as the inujured S-MAN is placed into the "chamber" and the new man is about to be put in a "recieving chamber", but at the LAST SECOND it is found he is a BAD GUY, a son of Lex Luther... and a young kid from the Daily Planet pushes him out of the way, and falls into the "recieving chamber" and HE BECOMES THE NEW S MAN.

What do ya thinque? (too late tho, with the sad loss of Reeve).
Message: Posted by: Brian Proctor (Jul 3, 2006 01:57PM)
[quote]
On 2006-07-02 05:46, Scott Cram wrote:
A few questions:

1) How in the world does Lois survive getting impregnated by Superman? You'd think she'd be vaporized by the very act!

2) Assuming she somehow survives the first part, how does she survive Superbaby kicking? I'm thinking that within the first 3 or 4 kicks, the baby has performed its own caesarian.

3) Does this kid being fathered by Superman mean that the classic pure-as-the-driven-snow Superman has been tossed out, along with "the American way?"

[/quote]

Well , I will go with the other continuities that say Supes didn't develop powers until he's much older. Meaning, as a baby, that is all he is, a delicate baby.
Perhaps same could be said for the little Jason? I dunno, just a possibility.




[quote]
On 2006-07-02 13:42, Doug Higley wrote:
Regarding Superman's IMAX 3-D...this movie was adjusted (electronically) from regular to the 3-D format.
Looks fantastic...but
just imagine how cool it will be when the intial digital photography and FX etc. will be specifically for 3-D aspects as Cameron, Lucas and many other producers are planning for, for their major releases....though rumors are that lots of older films (Star Wars etc.) will be prepped and reconfigured for a 3-D release as well.

Neato.

Supes 3-D was mostly the crashing plane near the open and a couple of other scenes.
[/quote]


Just to let everyone in the Portland OR area, IMAX is not showing Superman Returns in 3D at that location.
Message: Posted by: Sam Tabar (Jul 3, 2006 07:08PM)
[quote]
On 2006-07-01 22:25, daffydoug wrote:

BTW, I heard that the Superman outfit alone had a price tag of over sixty grand. Geeesh!
[/quote]

I saw an interview of the costume designer for Superman. She said the suit costs around the same price as a Porsche Carrera.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 3, 2006 07:36PM)
Have folks read Moore's [i]Miracleman[/i] yet?
Or his [i]Supreme: The Return[/i] issue 4?
Message: Posted by: Brian Proctor (Jul 3, 2006 07:56PM)
[quote]
On 2006-07-03 20:08, Sam Tabar wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-07-01 22:25, daffydoug wrote:

BTW, I heard that the Superman outfit alone had a price tag of over sixty grand. Geeesh!
[/quote]

I saw an interview of the costume designer for Superman. She said the suit costs around the same price as a Porsche Carrera.
[/quote]


According to the news, it looks like they made some of that money back bringing in $84 million since it opened. That is bigger than Batman Begins opening sales. Batman Begins and Superman Returns are my favorite superhero movies now.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jul 4, 2006 07:27PM)
[quote]
On 2006-07-03 13:50, Scott Cram wrote:
Marvel is currently making plans to make a Captain America movie. I hope they don't give it to the team that made "Superman Returns". I'm not sure a movie called, "Captain All That Stuff," would do well at the box office.
[/quote]

Y'know, I understand the animosity towards the line, but when Supes said; "Truth, Justice and the American Way" back in '78, it not only got a laugh but had to be followed by Lois' "You're going to end up taking on every elected offical in Washington!"

Now, it's even more cynical than then. :(
Message: Posted by: johnnymystic (Jul 4, 2006 10:39PM)
I've looked everywhere in my area and no one place carries the first Superman Movie...shucks!

johnny
Message: Posted by: Brian Proctor (Jul 5, 2006 12:22AM)
[quote]
On 2006-07-04 23:39, johnnymystic wrote:
I've looked everywhere in my area and no one place carries the first Superman Movie...shucks!

johnny
[/quote]

Walmart carries all of them. They have everything on Superman. And at about $5.50 at my local one.

Brian
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jul 5, 2006 08:17AM)
[quote]
On 2006-07-03 14:57, Brian Proctor wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-07-02 05:46, Scott Cram wrote:
A few questions:

1) How in the world does Lois survive getting impregnated by Superman? You'd think she'd be vaporized by the very act!

2) Assuming she somehow survives the first part, how does she survive Superbaby kicking? I'm thinking that within the first 3 or 4 kicks, the baby has performed its own caesarian.

3) Does this kid being fathered by Superman mean that the classic pure-as-the-driven-snow Superman has been tossed out, along with "the American way?"

[/quote]

Well , I will go with the other continuities that say Supes didn't develop powers until he's much older. Meaning, as a baby, that is all he is, a delicate baby.
Perhaps same could be said for the little Jason? I dunno, just a possibility.
[/quote]

In the first movie, he picks up the Kent truck when it slips off the jack.



[quote]
On 2006-07-02 13:42, Doug Higley wrote:
Regarding Superman's IMAX 3-D...this movie was adjusted (electronically) from regular to the 3-D format.
Looks fantastic...but
just imagine how cool it will be when the intial digital photography and FX etc. will be specifically for 3-D aspects as Cameron, Lucas and many other producers are planning for, for their major releases....though rumors are that lots of older films (Star Wars etc.) will be prepped and reconfigured for a 3-D release as well.

Neato.

Supes 3-D was mostly the crashing plane near the open and a couple of other scenes.
[/quote]


Just to let everyone in the Portland OR area, IMAX is not showing Superman Returns in 3D at that location.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Mercury52 (Jul 5, 2006 04:44PM)
Word is that many of the older Supey films will be undergoing the "Special Edition" treatment in the very near future. So for you folks who hate those cardboard snap cases, and want the possibility of some new special features, improved picture and sound, etc, you may want to wait it out a little bit.

I'll post more specific info as I find it.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com is a good place to get info like that. They keep pretty up-to-date.

Kevin
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 6, 2006 11:17AM)
Still no comments on "I hear everything" or his vists to their house?
Message: Posted by: Micheal Leath (Jul 6, 2006 11:43AM)
[quote]
On 2006-07-06 12:17, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Still no comments on "I hear everything" or his vists to their house?
[/quote]

Would you explain? I'm trying to understand what you are getting at.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jul 7, 2006 04:34AM)
[quote]
On 2006-07-02 10:22, daffydoug wrote:
The last statement sums it up nice. As I said in my post, his anger and hatred and need for revenge has been seething for at least fourty or fifty years now...when he finally does get to release it, his action is vicious beyond words.
[/quote]

Not certain where you're getting "fourty or fifty years" from. Presumbably it's only been a few years since the events of "Superman II."
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Jul 7, 2006 06:56PM)
According to many news sources, this may be the last weekend for Superman Returns. Even if it does well this weekend, the best they can hope for is the movie to be a $300 million loss.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 7, 2006 07:32PM)
What's going on Scott?

The Superman film seems a winner. The IMAX audience seemed to get into this thursday.

?? Pirates gonna clean up?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jul 8, 2006 05:40AM)
[quote]
On 2006-07-07 19:56, Scott Cram wrote:
According to many news sources, this may be the last weekend for Superman Returns. Even if it does well this weekend, the best they can hope for is the movie to be a $300 million loss.
[/quote]

Excuse me, if the film costs $300 million to make and grosses over $100 million domestically alone, that's hardly a "$300 million loss." This doesn't even take into account foreign grosses or cable/DVD sales. I doubt "Superman Returns" is going to be a loss. It might be considered a "disappointment" because it didn't make as much as they'd hoped, but Hollywood is going to have to face the fact that they're looking at a law of diminishing returns, eventually, they're going to make a movie that costs so much to make, it CAN'T make a profit no matter how many people go see it!
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jul 8, 2006 11:25PM)
Saw it last night and the theate was packed even though Pirates was playing at the same multiplex. I think it should hold its own for a while. In fact the theatre with the largest scren in town, the Cinerama has "Sorry No Pirates" on its marquee this week as Superman is still drawing well enough to keep it there.
Thought the movie was OK though the religous symbolism was a little much. Could have lived without all the "sent my only son" stuff and thought the crucified and risen Superman segment slowed down and muddled the ending.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 30, 2006 09:50PM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-28 14:20, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-06-28 13:23, mandrake01 wrote:
So I assume it turns out Routh can act somewhat? [/quote]

Imagine a soap star working against a green screen in a harness waiting for next SFX shot hoping he hits his marks right...
[/quote]

Um, wow, you just described exactly what Reeve did.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 31, 2006 10:21PM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-29 17:48, Platt wrote:
So I guess superman was far enough away from the kryptonite built island when lois removed the kryptonite from the back, he was okay.

I strongly disagree with the notion that a sci/fi fantasy picture doesn't have to be cohesive and logical. I urge anyone to who hasn't seen superman II to run out and watch it. It's everything a superhero movie should be. I truly believe nothing's come close to capturing its magic.

I also wanted to add that I'm always right and my opinion rules.
[/quote]

You think it was good before, just wait untill you see the Richard Donner cut coming out this year, finally the way it was ment to be.

Keep in mind that they will probably have the time reversal as the ending because it was ment to be at the end of II and NOT at the end of one, so it is NOT just a recycling of the ending but rather putting it where it was ment to be.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 31, 2006 10:22PM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-29 22:08, Timothy Drake wrote:
I just returned from seeing the film. I had really hoped they'd capture some of that magic I felt as a teenager watching the first film years ago. The first Superman film was the first comic book movie to come into the real world with class and success. If not for that film there would be no Batman or Spiderman films today.

Remakes are always a touchy thing.....how do you update a classic film and make it modern without spoiling the magic the classic held. So many recent " updates " have promised everything and ended up being an emotionless parade of CGI graphics. My friends warned me not to get my hopes up with this one as they had seen me so disappointed in recent remakes. That popcorn chewin, movie lovin teenager in me seemed destined to become only a memory.

Well he's back baby!!!! THIS MOVIE ROCKS!!!!!! Hollywood finally figured it out!!!! We like a story dam it! Give us something to cheer in our hearts rather than just our eyes.

You'd have to experienced the magic in '79 to really appreciate what I am talking about here. Regardless you'll enjoy this film. I sat through the closing credits waiting for that most important class act I had hoped for and.........there it was .." This film is respectfully dedicated to Christopher and Dana Reeve." I still have a lump in my throat.

On a more light hearted note... did anyone else recognise the bartender in the film????? Also was that a cameo appearance by Richard Branson as a shuttle pilot?? During the closing credits I was distracted and turned back to see what I thought was a glimpse of " sir richard branson" as it scrolled off screen. Just wondering if anyone else saw Branson in the pilots seat?

Best,

Tim




[/quote]

Wow, you had me scared there for a sec Tim, I thought you were gonna say you were disapointed.

also, don't forget who Gertrude was. I alway's liked Phylis Coates better though, in her brief time in the part.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 31, 2006 10:25PM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-30 19:16, Doug Higley wrote:
Been a Superman fan since the 1940's! He has always been America's Hero. Untill now. Truth Justice and The American Way, always a part of the Superman legend was purposely altered for the latest film for PC reasons and because the writers, director etc. want's him to be considered a hero of the Earth not America. It is now spoken in the film as "Truth Justice And All That Stuff"

So, personally the Truth of it and the Justice and the American Way is I'll spend my money next month on 'Snakes On A Plane'.

I know most of you don't give a hoot...but I'm fed up with Hollywood...100%

Here's the story with many quotes: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/film_reporter_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002764635


"In fact, Dougherty and Harris never even considered including "the American way" in their screenplay. After the wunderkind writing duo ("X2: X-Men United") conceived "Superman's" story with director Bryan Singer during a Hawaiian vacation, they penned their first draft together and intentionally omitted what they considered to be a loaded and antiquated expression. That decision stood throughout the 140-day shoot in Australia, where the pair remained on-set to provide revisions and tweaks.

"We were always hesitant to include the term 'American way' because the meaning of that today is somewhat uncertain...So, you play the movie in a foreign country, and you say, 'What does he stand for? -- truth, justice and the American way.' I think a lot of people's opinions of what the American way means outside of this country are different from what the line actually means (in Superman lore) because they are not the same anymore," Harris says. "And (using that line) would taint the meaning of what he is saying."


Good Grief...give me a break!!

I'm sure it's an entertaining movie though...carry on...
[/quote]

Actually, it was far more of a political comment then trying to be pc, leaving out that bit that is. Simply because the "American way" (aside from sounding corny, even coming from Reeve it still was corny) is just not what it used to be.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 31, 2006 10:26PM)
[quote]
On 2006-07-31 23:21, gdw wrote:...Keep in mind that they will probably have the time reversal as the ending because it was ment to be at the end of II and NOT at the end of one, so it is NOT just a recycling of the ending but rather putting it where it was ment to be. [/quote]

in II? I recall the time reversal as happening after the missiles hit and Lois is dead and he's all unhappy... as a way to bring her back. Is there another version of I where something else happens?

Where would the time reversal happen in II? He wikes back to the remains of the fortress, gets his powers back and then goes after the villains. Then leaves a trap for them. Confused as to where a time reversal would fit here.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 1, 2006 10:23AM)
[quote]
On 2006-07-31 23:26, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-07-31 23:21, gdw wrote:...Keep in mind that they will probably have the time reversal as the ending because it was ment to be at the end of II and NOT at the end of one, so it is NOT just a recycling of the ending but rather putting it where it was ment to be. [/quote]

in II? I recall the time reversal as happening after the missiles hit and Lois is dead and he's all unhappy... as a way to bring her back. Is there another version of I where something else happens?

Where would the time reversal happen in II? He wikes back to the remains of the fortress, gets his powers back and then goes after the villains. Then leaves a trap for them. Confused as to where a time reversal would fit here.
[/quote]

Yes it was used in the first one, but here's what happened.

I and II were being filmed at the same time, and I was ment to end with a cliff hanger where he manages to get both missles but one of them, while being tossed through space, hits the phantom zone and THAT was what was supposed to release the villans.

Then they would end the film, and leave you hanging untill II.

But, the producers (who were, for some dumb reason, at odds with Richard Donner) were worried that they would not get them both done, so, at a point when they had over 75% of II filmed, they said lets focus on finishing one, and after it's out we can finish two.

So, with things in a bit of a switch Donner finished I, and threw on the world spinning ending (where it had a great emotional impact I think) and they released the film to a HUGE success.

Now, inspite of the film being incredible and doing just as well financially, the producers said F U to Donner, and brought in Richard Lester to finish two.

However, they did not even want Donner's name on the film, and apparently, you need to have filmed over 50% to be credited as the director.

So seeing as how it was over 75% done, Lester had to go back and re-shoot a bunch of the film to reach the 50% quota, as well as finish off what had not been shot.

This is where the mose campy crap came in, like the celophane S/, the hick town take over, and the additional powers that no Kryptonian ever had before. Basically all the things that kept II from being greater then I, you can blame the Producers (the Salkinds) and Lester for.

So, to replace the ending, where after saving everything, and getting his powers back, Superman concludes that he cannot be with Lois as the world needs him. So, Lester says "hey, lets make Superman have the ability to erase peoples memories after having sex with them, it's the new date rape" and the Amnesia Kiss is born (one of the most hated concepts in comic fanom, next to the clone saga.)

Donner had planned to have Superman decide that what he had done was selfish and he needed to continue with his comitment to the world, so to undo everything, mainly telling Lois who he was, he reverses time and all that jazz.

I personally think the time spin had better emotional play at the end of I, but also hate the amnesia kiss.



On an additional note, it was the producers $#!t threatment of Donner, kicking him to the curb, that lead to Brando saying he did not want to be featured in II, hence why we see Superman's mother in the fortress instead. Similarly, Hackman also refused to come back, so they had to make due with what they had shot of him, and then they used a body double, shot from behind, and a voice actor, to finish his scenes.

Mostly you can see this in the shots from the distance in the arctic.

Margo Kidder was similarly outspoken about how they walked over Donner after II was done, so the Salkinds said "here's five minutes of screen time for SUperman III" and then focused on Clark rekindling with Lana Lang.

The Lana Lang thing was nice, but again just shows how they were being dicks to everyone.

And that is, more or less, the story of Superman I and II, and a touch of III.
Message: Posted by: cardone (Aug 1, 2006 07:17PM)
Superman DVD box set 14 disks .. nov 06 .....start saving your money..... every movie will be in it plus all the old catroons and a bonus disk for each movie.......
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 1, 2006 10:44PM)
[quote]
On 2006-08-01 20:17, cardone wrote:
Superman DVD box set 14 disks .. nov 06 .....start saving your money..... every movie will be in it plus all the old catroons and a bonus disk for each movie.......
[/quote]

This is the one that should be having the Donner cut I believe.
Message: Posted by: johnnymystic (Aug 1, 2006 10:47PM)
Gdw...

what you described in your next to last post sounds like it would make a great movie!

lets say yu, me and Pete Biro come up with a screenplay???

johnny
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 2, 2006 12:03AM)
How tough is it to parse a DVD movie (vob file) into avi files for each shot?

Can then reassemble

;)
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 2, 2006 11:49AM)
[quote]
On 2006-08-01 23:47, johnnymystic wrote:
Gdw...

what you described in your next to last post sounds like it would make a great movie!

lets say yu, me and Pete Biro come up with a screenplay???

johnny
[/quote]

You mean the Superman II story, or the story of the fiasco of Superman II
Message: Posted by: johnnymystic (Aug 2, 2006 09:04PM)
The fiasco and all the backstage drama.

johnny
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 2, 2006 09:13PM)
Yes, but it would be nothing compared to the sequel, which would be the snear two decade battle to get a new superman movie to the screen.

From the Saklind's Superman the NEW movie, to The Tim Burton Superman (played by Nic Cage) Lives, to the JJ Abrams Flyby script that had Krypton NOT exploding and a Lex Luther who was a CIA agent who was actually from Krypton himself and a living superman suit!!!!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 2, 2006 09:38PM)
Glenn, that stuff sounds very cool.

I'm sorry hollywood just does not do the Alan Moore Miracleman straight up and leave Superman to his comicbook mythology intact.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 3, 2006 12:11AM)
I just can't wait for them to finally get The Watchmen right and on film.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2006 08:54AM)
So anyone else seen Superman Returns yet?
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Aug 5, 2006 09:32AM)
I just saw it for the second time last night.( before it leaves the big screen for DVD ) I enjoyed it as much as the first time and noticed a LOT of hints through the movie towards the surprise revelation. I don't care about any of these silly plot possiblility debates.... its SUPERMAN... its fun..relax and enjoy it.

Can't see why Pirates beat this so bad at the box office. I'm a huge pirates fan and thougth the sequel was a run-on mess. Superman rocked but Pirates ran away with all the summer money. Oh well... in the words of Jack Sparrow....."PIRATE!" LOL

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 5, 2006 09:35AM)
Great moments at the Kent household

"Mom, most guys wear their underware under their pants"
"Son, it's okay, you aren't wearing pants, those are tights"

And still not so happy about the tech-mesh look of the costume or the deeper red.

But as you say... it's "Superman" and
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Aug 5, 2006 10:13AM)
[quote]
On 2006-08-05 10:35, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
And still not so happy about the tech-mesh look of the costume or the deeper red.
But as you say... it's "Superman" and
[/quote]

I hated the darker look in promo photos but quickly began to like it in the film. I especially liked the longer cape.

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 5, 2006 10:18AM)
I remember Playboy magazine doing two different Superman stories. One was supposed to be from James Olsen ("not 'Jimmy," please! Who ever heard of 'War and Peace' by 'Jimmy Olsen?'") who's an underground radical and head. "Went into the supply closet, got stoned, dug the mops." "Clark came up to my desk, flexed his muscles, turned my stapler into a ball bearing. I just smiled because it's supposed to take a MAN to do something like that, right? *#&$ everybody KNOWS he's Superman! You can see that big red "S" through those *#*#*&* white shirts he wears!"

Another one was "Clark Ghent's School Days" which is supposed to be from Clark's adopted brother who never got into the stories. "Clark was strong as an ox and about as smart. If you said to him; 'Jesus Christ, Clark. A twenty dollar bill just blew under that truck!' He'd knock the truck over looking for it without thinking." and my favorite, where he describes the costume; "Ma Ghent had a frustrated theatrical streak and it came out here. Blue tights, red boots, red trunks, red cape... he looked like a dangerous fairy! On the front of the costume, Ma had woven a big "S." None of us could figure out what it stood for, the nearest guess was "stupid," but we didn't think Ma was that smart... or cruel."

Hey! Just did a google search, found part of the second one.

http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/tiggermovie/45.html
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2006 10:25PM)
Don't forget to check it out in Imax 3-d.

Remember this film was shot regularly, and NOT in 3-D, but they converted some scenes into 3-D and they look amazingly.

Ganted I think they should have done the opening credits in 3-D, that should have been a no brainer, but sadly they were not.

Let's also not forget the near half an hour that they cut from the film, including the original opening sequence actually showing Kal's journey to Krypton's remains.

Singer, the director, hopes to eventually release a cut including that in iomax 3-d too, but for now it will not be seen :(
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 5, 2006 10:29PM)
[quote]
On 2006-08-05 11:18, mandrake01 wrote:
I remember Playboy magazine doing two different Superman stories. ...[/quote]

Sounds cute and not bad for mainstream media way back when.

Check out Spider's perspective in the TransMet [i]I Hate It Here[/i] special issue.

Or the running gags in [i]Megaton Man[/i] also back in the 1980s.

It appears Lex Luthor is president these days in the comics.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 6, 2006 06:49AM)
[quote]
On 2006-08-02 22:38, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Glenn, that stuff sounds very cool.

I'm sorry hollywood just does not do the Alan Moore Miracleman straight up and leave Superman to his comicbook mythology intact.
[/quote]

Ask 100 people who "Superman" is and who "Miracleman" is and see what answers you get. Case closed. (Mind you, I'm not suggest Miracleman wouldn't make a good film, just that that's not the way studio heads think.)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 6, 2006 08:10AM)
Are you suggesting that studio heads believe acting to preserve ignorance is the most profitable and utilitarian course of action?

Just the first three issues of MM could make a startling and poignant movie. Unlike Clarke who was raised to be a mid-west American farm boy, MM was raised to be a hero and given two histories, one as comic book hero and the other (his change self) as orphan. BTW the Orphan grows up and get married, forgetting his hero nature. Then the memories come back. Kind of like what the writer of "Hook" was out to do but under greater adversity and in our world not Neverland. IMHO it's a much richer story to explore. I WISH they (Hollywood) had the courage to follow such a story all the way to book three when question about how super beings might affect the world are explored.

Still sorry "good" and "bad" are made so ineffective in the "Superman" mythos as it stands. It's as if the story teller's greatest desire is to keep people from thinking.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 7, 2006 04:17AM)
[quote]
On 2006-08-06 09:10, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Are you suggesting that studio heads believe acting to preserve ignorance is the most profitable and utilitarian course of action?
[/quote]

I'm saying that the studios will only promote what they think will already sell.

Original or unknown stuff has a more uphill battle (hello, "V for Vendetta") and the studios are rarely interested in investing big bucks in something that isn't tried and true.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 7, 2006 04:20AM)
[quote]
On 2006-08-07 05:17, mandrake01 wrote:...Original or unknown stuff has a more uphill battle (hello, "V for Vendetta") ...[/quote]

Done so well that upon reading the script, the author insisted his name NOT be associated with the project.

And this summer a movie about someone who does not know what they want and a heartless squid which was all but panned seems to be resonating with folks.
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Aug 7, 2006 09:47AM)
[quote]
On 2006-08-07 05:20, Jonathan Townsend wrote:

And this summer a movie about someone who does not know what they want and a heartless squid which was all but panned seems to be resonating with folks.
[/quote]

I'm as baffled as you Jonathan. 2 1/2 hrs of mindless, lost, action to set up the next chapter seems to be what people want this summer.

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 7, 2006 09:47AM)
[quote]
On 2006-08-07 05:20, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-08-07 05:17, mandrake01 wrote:...Original or unknown stuff has a more uphill battle (hello, "V for Vendetta") ...[/quote]

Done so well that upon reading the script, the author insisted his name NOT be associated with the project.

And this summer a movie about someone who does not know what they want and a heartless squid which was all but panned seems to be resonating with folks.
[/quote]

Moore NEVER wants his name associated with ANY of his works being put to film. From Hell and LXG were both based on Moores works. Not to say that they were in any way comparable or anything.

But the REASON he does this is because he has a personal oppinion about his works being adapted. He believes that they were written for the comics and should stay there. He does not like the idea of somethig origially intended for one medium being translated to another.

Even though comics lend themsleves so perfectly to the proccess given their story board nature and cinematic portrayal. Not to mention that comics are really scripts tranlated to images, and films are scripts translated to stoy boards translated to film, but any who.

So it had nothing to do with the script of film, but simply it was something that Moore was pre-detirmined to do long before anyone even thought about making it a film.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 7, 2006 10:49AM)
Glenn,

I'm surprised at that report of his sentiments.

From the opening page of the "watchmen" story to to its format and similarly with his other SCRIPTS, it seems odd that one who writes as if for the cinema, with every panel described in great detail, would object to a direct translation of his work into the very sound and vision depicted in his writing.

I've read a few of his scripts... amazing things.

I'll have to look up some interviews to see where this comes from.

Thanks for making me wonder.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 7, 2006 04:55PM)
Alway's glad to help. V was actually really good. But he did not have anything to do with From Hell or LXG either.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 11, 2006 11:29PM)
[quote]
On 2006-06-30 19:16, Doug Higley wrote:
Been a Superman fan since the 1940's! He has always been America's Hero. Untill now. Truth Justice and The American Way, always a part of the Superman legend was purposely altered for the latest film for PC reasons and because the writers, director etc. want's him to be considered a hero of the Earth not America. It is now spoken in the film as "Truth Justice And All That Stuff"

So, personally the Truth of it and the Justice and the American Way is I'll spend my money next month on 'Snakes On A Plane'.

I know most of you don't give a hoot...but I'm fed up with Hollywood...100%

Here's the story with many quotes: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/film_reporter_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002764635


"In fact, Dougherty and Harris never even considered including "the American way" in their screenplay. After the wunderkind writing duo ("X2: X-Men United") conceived "Superman's" story with director Bryan Singer during a Hawaiian vacation, they penned their first draft together and intentionally omitted what they considered to be a loaded and antiquated expression. That decision stood throughout the 140-day shoot in Australia, where the pair remained on-set to provide revisions and tweaks.
[/quote]

There is one other point I'd like to make on this. The quote is from Perry White. Not really the guy to follow through on a catch phrase. He strikes me as a cynical guy who wouldn't really be comfortable with saying; "The American Way."
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 19, 2006 10:38AM)
[quote]
On 2006-08-01 20:17, cardone wrote:
Superman DVD box set 14 disks .. nov 06 .....start saving your money..... every movie will be in it plus all the old catroons and a bonus disk for each movie.......
[/quote]

I already have all 16 of the old cartoons! My kid found two DVDs for a dollar each that had them. I'd like to see the old serial with Kirk Alyn and the amazing "animated" flying sequences!
Message: Posted by: pkg (Sep 25, 2006 11:34AM)
Ummmm is it me or is there a "Biblical" "jesusish" touch to the movie?, after the blockade being lifted we are flooded with new movies!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 25, 2006 04:54PM)
I dunno pkg.

Having a child out of wedlock and floating in and out of the house of the now wedded mother is way to creepy for me to make that association. That idea comes seems to come more from a Philip K. Dick story (Golden Man) than acceptable western mythology.

Likewise even though his father may have intended him to lead, the character has dedicated himself to a more "walk with" style and in secret identity/costume at that.

What did the character learn from the story? Maybe Lois now has an issue to ponder. Lex seems okay. Did supes learn anything?
Message: Posted by: pkg (Sep 25, 2006 05:28PM)
LOL, no, I meant...

Jor-El: You will travel far, my little Kal-El, but we will never leave you-even in the face of our deaths. You will make my strength your own. You will see my life through your eyes, as your life will be seen through mine. The son becomes the father. And the father, the son.

Jor-El: [Superman is remembering Jor-El's last message to him from the first film] Live as one of them, Kal-El, to discover where your strength and your power are needed. Always hold in your heart the pride of your special heritage. They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 25, 2006 06:28PM)
The parallel you are drawing could be interpreted as both a blasphemy and a heresy.

Chthulu loves you anyway

;)
Message: Posted by: Brian Proctor (Sep 25, 2006 08:43PM)
[quote]
On 2006-09-25 12:34, pkg wrote:
Ummmm is it me or is there a "Biblical" "jesusish" touch to the movie?, after the blockade being lifted we are flooded with new movies!
[/quote]

With Superman, that comparison has been drawn many times over the last 70 years superman has been around. Shuster and Siegel may have very well indeed taken aspects of that and put it into the superman mythology.

I personally don't mind it.