comment #1

Mathew says ...

Based on his reaction you can tell he's unhappy about the performance of Superman. It's a shitty question to be asked but that's show business. My bet is on Brett Ratner directing the sequel. If there is a sequel that is...

comment #2

lesterg says ...

Bryan's reaction of stuttering, stammering and twitching is very uncomfortable to watch (but on another level, it is somewhat funny).

I just can't believe that he didn't anticipate being asked about Pirates. Routh handled the question with an A+ answer so he's either far better off-the-cuff or his handlers prepped for that particular line of questioning.

As Jeff said: poor poor Bryan.

comment #3

NYCBusybody says ...

He's gay, so I'm sure in Hollywood he's used to people coddling him and telling him how wonderful and special and brilliantly artistic and deep his mind is.

Then Johnny Depp's gay pirate blows him out of the water, and the poor chap knows not what to think.

comment #4

Rossi says ...

I saw Pirates of the Caribbean last night.

And I have to be honest, I have no idea why people love this movie so much or it is making that much money. It was awful. My friends and I kept looking at each other hoping it would end. I saw Superman too and I thought it was a MUCH better overall film. It certainly wasn't perfect, but my god Pirates was a mess that wouldn't end...and didn't end with that stupid cliffhanger Pirates 3 tease.

However, I think the box office numbers for both of these films are a result of their marketing campaings. Pirate's worked. Superman's was ineffective, targeted the wrong audiences, and never really got people excited. I remember my friends saying they had no idea a new Superman movie was coming out, even just a week or two before it did!

comment #5

NYCBusybody says ...

There was really a very minimal marketing campaign for Pirates 2. Nothing NEAR the onslaught that MI:3 and Superman Returns put everywhere, on everything.

The Pirates 2 marketing campaign was: Pirates 1.

People wanted to see this no matter what. Quality of the movie aside, it had sold itself before people even knew there was a sequel.

comment #6

Rossi says ...

NYCBusyBody - You're right about the built in audience from the first film, however I certainly wouldn't call Pirate's marketing campaign "very minimal".

Regardless, Superman's campaign seemed to target older audiences and women. While an attempt to attract a wider demographic seems like a good idea, I think WB forget to really target the audience that sees Superhero movies - teenage boys. I understand that Singer and his team were aiming high here; they were attempting to make something more than just a regular superhero movie, which I think they did for the most part.

But, the fact that I never once saw a movie poster in my city, only saw a couple of TV ads (nothing near as many as X3) and that many of my friends didn't even know the film was coming out, tells me that WB did something wrong.

A well reviewed and well made film like Superman Returns should have had a much larger opening weekend - the ineffective marketing campaign was the problem in my opinion.

comment #7

NYCBusybody says ...

"they were attempting to make something more than just a regular superhero movie"

Well, I suppose that's just where I fundamentally disagree. I like regular superhero movies. When I go to a superhero/action/adventure movie, I think I SHOULD feel like a kid, or teenager, as opposed to an adult.

To me, the movies that offend my intelligence are those aimed at adults that end up stupid, like Superman Returns. My favorite time of year is the fall and winter, when intelligent, examining films of depth for adults are more in abundance. Hell, my favorite movie of this decade is actually Mike Leigh's "Topsy-Turvy", a movie even most discerning ADULTS find dull.

I DONT WANT THAT IN SUPERMAN RETURNS. I WANT TO SEE SUPERMAN FLY AROUND AND SAVE PEOPLE. Why this insistence on making action/adventure movies dull, sullen, moribund? If there are people who only go see movies like Pirates, I don't like those kind of people either. But that's not the case for most us posting on this site who do enjoy Pirates and not Superman.

comment #8

Rich says ...

As I posted on another thread, I really think that SR was done in mostly by the schizophrenic marketing campaign. They seemed to want to push that SR was "more" than a superhero film. But then, when it became apparent that it's the "superhero" part of the equation that brings in the teenage boys, they shifted gears again and emphasized that. Then they went with the romance. Then the "SuperChrist" angle. When the film didn't succeed on all those levels, the word of mouth was awful.

Pirates marketing campaign, on the other hand, was "expect more of the same, with squishier villains." On that level, it delivered. And how.

comment #9

NYCBusybody says ...

If I want "more" than a superhero film, I'll go see Malick, or Mann, or Leigh, or Lee.
I'm not intellectually insecure enough that I need to see deep themes reflected in popcorn adventures.

comment #10

Jerry says ...

Don't quite understand this talk about Depp's Pirate being gay - effeminate, yes. A bit of a priss, yes. But his character definitely digs women, as he is shown trying to put the moves on Kiera Knightly, obviously has a 'history' with the voodoo priestess and very clearly 'used' and 'abused' the female prostitutes whom Orlando Bloom questions about Depp's whereabouts in an early scene.
There are plenty of men out there who might be considered 'peacocks' but who are not gay.

comment #11

NYCBusybody says ...

I suppose for me, gay can be an adjective as well, and normally applies to effeminate behavior in men.

I suppose Sparrow is a metrosexual pirate.

comment #12

Rossi says ...

Rich - I completely agree with you. Regardless of whether you liked Superman or not (and there are many people of all ages that did), the film never had a solid, clear message in its marketing campaign.

NYCBusyBody - I see why you didn't like the film, but I think that's beside the point when talking about the marketing campaign. Pirate's campaign was much more effective, even though the film ended up being crap.

I think WB expected teen boys to turn out simply because it was Superman. They focused on trying to bring in too wide of an audience. And by neglecting the core audience in their marketing campaign, they were unable to create a significant buzz before the film's release. Adults and women aren't the types to rush out to see a new superhero movie. The tracking numbers that Jeff posted on this site several weeks back, and the underwhelming opening weekend numbers are evidence of this.

comment #13

NYCBusybody says ...

Yes, Rossi, you're right, I'm talking more about the film itself, as opposed to the marketing campaign. I agree with the points you're making regarding the marketing, 100%.

comment #14

Rossi says ...

"If I want "more" than a superhero film, I'll go see Malick, or Mann, or Leigh, or Lee.
I'm not intellectually insecure enough that I need to see deep themes reflected in popcorn adventures."

I respect your opinion, but wanting to see fully developed themes in a movie means that someone is insecure NYCBusyBody. Compare X2 to X3 ... X2 was a vastly superior film. How in the world does preferring X2 to X3 make someone intellectually insecure?

Singer and his team were aiming high on Superman Returns. The film worked for me and many others, but apparently did not work for you and I respect that.

comment #15

Rossi says ...

meant to say "I respect your opinion, but wanting to see fully developed themes in a movie does not mean that someone is insecure NYCBusyBody."

comment #16

NYCBusybody says ...

I don't especially like any of the X-Men movies. I think Singer (and Ratner, only without the obvious talent of Singer) brings too heavy-handed, dull, and sullen a spirit to these kind of movies. Superheroes and adventures, to me, need a light-hearted spirit and humor.

I like themes examining the outcast nature of certain segments of society, and the impact it can have on citizens, especially young people growing up confused about their place in a culture that may not accept them. I truly do. Just not in a superhero movie, at least not to the extent that Singer's X-Men movies became that. I simply don't understand the insistence on adding themes that are too heavy to be fully incorporated in what these movies SHOULD be; light-hearted, funny, winsome rather than leaden.

comment #17

oddDuck says ...

"I simply don't understand the insistence on adding themes that are too heavy to be fully incorporated in what these movies SHOULD be; light-hearted, funny, winsome rather than leaden."

I think that's a bit of a false dichotomy there. Heavy themes don't have to be leaden - they can be epic and grand. Also, comic books aren't all light-hearted and fun. It sounds like all you want from big budget action movies is some breezy afternoon fun, and in the face of SR's box office mediocracy, it's safe to say much of america agrees with you. But I don't.

comment #18

Scott Wilks says ...

XMen 2 is my favorite superhero movie! I think it's the best one ever made, or at least among the best (batman begins was great too).

NYC, if you don't like Xmen2, what type of superhero movies do you like? Fantastic Four??!? It certainly lacked any sort of depth!! Is that really what you prefer?????

comment #19

Rossi says ...

OddDuck - I agree with you.

I'm finding it difficult to understand the general movie going audience's taste nowadays. Pirates was terrible!! My friends and I were in disbelief at the "end" of the film, when it FINALLY came. How can it be breaking all these records?

comment #20

jesse says ...

NYC Busybody, if the X-Men/Spiderman breed of superhero movies we've seen lately -- all of which have smart (if not explicitly wisecracky; all the better) humor and fun action scenes and a whole lot of entertainment value -- are too "sullen" and pretentious for you, I shudder to think at what kind of cotton candy you need to have a good time. Hey, you know what superhero movie aspired to nothing more than a light-hearted good time? The Fantastic Damn Four. Not that what we needed was a dark, brooding F4 movie. But it's also not as if the Spiderman and X-Men movies are humorless bores; they just dole out humor carefully and in some cases even subtly. Actually, Superman Returns wasn't a humorless bore, either; it got more laughs (intentional ones, wiseasses!) out of me than Pirates 2, actually (which made me smile several times, but rarely more).

You're prescribing that every superhero and/or adventure movie needs to be made with more or less the same tone to satisfy you. You say that demanding more is intellectual insecure; I say that demanding less is condescending.

comment #21

Rich says ...

Everyone in this genre has been trying to (re)capture the lightning in a bottle that is Spider-Man 2. The movie developed the romance between Peter and Mary Jane and tried to show the real cost of being a superhero, when you're also a college student with no money and raging hormones. But, and this is the key, it was directed by Sam Raimi. So in addition to the angst you also got some of the best, most frenetic superhero action scenes ever put on film. The fight on the train is really terrific, on almost all levels.

To be fair, the template was there as created by Stan Lee, Steve Ditko and John Romita. Those developing the DC heroes have always had to develop conflicts not intrinsic in the characters. Batman, being "human" and driven by revenge, is a little easier to understand.

But Superman has always been tough. The prior series hit a wall after they realized that Kryptonian villains are about as big a challenge as Supes could face. SR hit a wall in part because it was trying to build on Donner. But it forgot to be fun. Thus, the "neither fish nor fowl" approach.

comment #22

Rossi says ...

I agree with jesse. There were a lot of very funny moments in Superman Returns. The superman screenwriters did a great job with the humorous lines, even though I agree that the plan they came up with for Lex Luthor was not the most original.

I was expecting much more humor in Pirates than actually existed. And the humor that was there just didn't work. In general, the audience in the theater (which was nearly sold out on a wednesday night) agreed with me. Very few laughs and lots of annoyed faces at the end. What was so disappointing about this is that I love Johnny Depp and thought he was so funny in the first Pirates film.

comment #23

NYCBusybody says ...

I haven't seen Fantastic Four, nor do I care to.

In this vein, I liked the first two Superman movies (Chris Reeve), the Indiana Jones movies (well, the first and third), the Pirates movies (more the first than second), and both Spider-Mans, particularly two.

Superman Returns was funny for about five minutes in the beginning, and I actually had high hopes that point that it would remain light and fun. Then it became "Lois Lane and her boring family Returns" and I fell asleep.

comment #24

NYCBusybody says ...

And I think those who find it "condescending" to expect less from a superhero movie are the people who actually think these movies should be the realm of deep thought in the first place.

I do expect "less" angst, intellectual depth, and thematic strength from Superman and Pirates than from "Secrets and Lies" or "Do the Right Thing". If that makes me condescending, so be it.

comment #25

Rossi says ...

Personally, I laughed every time Jimmy Olsen was on screen. That actor was great. Plus, many of the Lex/Kitty moments were pretty hilarious.

I thought the "how pissed do you think that makes superman line" (from Jimmy to Clark), was great. And the moment where Lois looks at her son and asks him to help mommy open the door. Well done humor IMO.

comment #26

Preston says ...

Superman - as a franchise, not an artistic achievement - was fundamentally flawed from the beginnning. The entire plot line featuring Superman as an absentee father was poison for the film's box office for the exact reasons it was so interesting to us film buffs - it challenged the traditional popular understanding of Superman as a character. Moreover, the character of Superman has a much higher general awareness than the twenty year old Donner Superman franchise. People I talked to seemed confused about the film's premise; the film - other than the first plane sequence - never seemed to make an effort to really entertain. That was fine with me; I enjoyed seeing a new approach to the character. Most of my friends, however, found the film overly weighty and dull. I did agree that it was a mistake to have Superman incapicitated for most of the climax. That last giant heave was nice but did not carry the power it should have. There was no real energy - something Pirates has in spades - to Superman Returns. Visually, it was full of gray skies and ugly crystals and pseudo-Seventies fashion. Pirates just seemed bigger, brighter, and more fun in comparison. I don't think the emotional current was as strong, but audiences carried a certain automatic emotional attachment with the Pirates character into the film and it seems like that will be enough to carry that film past $400 million.

comment #27

NYCBusybody says ...

Energy, Preston, energy! That's the exact word I should have been using. Even if one doesn't see it in Pirates 2, which is a fair assessment, I think the general point remains that at least with Pirates they're TRYING to achieve a fun energy.

If someone can fuse character depth, darker moments WITHOUT coming at the expense of fun energy (as I believe Raimi did in Spider-Man 2), then more power to them. Singer certainly isn't capable.

comment #28

Megan says ...

Preston - maybe you're right, even though I loved the film and appreciate the filmmaker's efforts. Heres hoping for brighter skies and colors in the Superman sequel!!

comment #29

Mathew says ...

I agree Preston about Superman Returns. I would of dropped the kid completely. The Supes returning after five years part I thought was fine since it opened up the Lois, Supes, Clark and what's his name love 'square'. I liked the idea of Lois writing a Pulitzer prize winning article "Why the World doesn't need Superman." The film could of then had given us a sense that Metropolis had lived through similiar events as New York did during 9/11 and that people made it through it without Superman. I feel they really should of went with the film being about Superman proving his worth again and regaining the love of Lois. That would of been a real romance. An NPR reviewer mentioned going with a "His Girl Friday" angle and I think that would of been a lot of fun especially in fleshing Clark Kent out. Have him become more of the jealous lover who secretly desires to reveal his true self to Lois. Of course you would still have some arch villian escaping from prison and wanting to take over the world (or at least have his piece of the pie), Superman taking a million bullets and him rescuing kittens from trees. That stuff is fun but it's not what could of been a great Superman film.

comment #30

akabob2002 says ...

I think the (relative) box office failure of "Superman Returns" has less to do with marketing and more to do with it simply not connecting with a large audience. I went in with high expectations that were not met. For the most part I do like what Singer's intentions were (picking up the pieces from Donner's original epic), but I don't think he succeeded (Kate Bosworth is woefully miscast as Lois Lane). Plus, unlike "Superman: The Movie" Singer's take never felt like it was ever in New York City (or Metropolis). There was no feel for location & setting. It just missed with me and I really wanted to like it.

comment #31

oddDuck says ...

Entirely agree with the last few posts. I enjoyed SR greatly, but will admit it lagged at times with perhaps more character development than it needed. 15 minutes of smart non-action scene edits would have given this movie a big jolt of energy. I hate to say that because it's obvious SR is a movie made with as much filmmaking integrity and artistic skill as can reasonably be expected in Hollywood today. I'm sure there will be a sequel, and have no doubt that Singer will learn from the first and offer a refined, leaner, meaner and perhaps brighter Superman sequel.

comment #32

jesse says ...

I don't mind people expecting less from a superhero than, say, a Spike Lee or Coen Brothers movie or something. Those are our top-tier directors, hopefully doing what they want, and not worrying about pleasing audiences. That's completely fair -- though based (for me) more on talent of individual filmmakers than the inherent strengths or limitations of a particular genre.

But I do take issue with *demanding* less from a superhero movie! NYCBusyBody, you claim that Ratner shares Bryan Singer's supposed over-serious take on the X-Men movies, but quite to the contrary, I'd say, look, you want to know what the X-Men movies look like with less gravitas and more "fun"? They look like X-Men 3: entertaining, fun, and very dumb. I had fun at Singer's X-movies, too; fun doesn't have to be dumb, and trying to at least apply a serious theme to a fun movie doesn't spell death! Part of the fun I had at Superman Returns was the enjoyment I took (after the X3 mess) in a superhero movie that had a current of real intelligence going through it.

I guess I'm just having trouble with two things. 1. That you can find the Spiderman movies to be correctly balanced, but the X-Men movies (which I would say are in a similar tonal ballpark, if not exactly the same) too serious and dour and pretentious.

2. That, given that you seem to have found a superhero series to your liking with Spiderman, that you would want to see a lot of movies along those same lines, rather than a spectrum (some lighthearted, some dark). What did you think of Batman Begins? I remember a Time Out New York review that essentially said "Batman is silly, and this movie takes it seriously, so this movie is lame"... basically, no matter how you do one of those movies, there will be someone dismissing them and saying you should've used the "other" tone (campy, dark, whatever).

I am glad to hear that others liked some of the same laugh-lines in Superman Returns that I did! That "pissed" exchange was terrific, I agree.

comment #33

Rossi says ...

I'm glad too Jesse!

There are things that could have been better, but all in all, Superman Returns was a very good movie, with a lot of funny moments! It aimed high and succeeded on many levels.

Also, I don't understand why people are giving Kate Bosworth such a hard time. She was fine. She's playing a character that has moved on and that is dealing with a lot of emotional pain.

comment #34

Astral Weeks says ...

I haven't seen either Pirates or Superman but I must confess that I got a slightly sadistic kick out of Singer's obvious discomfort at the question. Talk about an awkward moment.

I agree with the comments above that the reason that Pirates outgrossed Super is that the audiences want to have some knockabout fun from their popcorn flicks. Superman gives off the vibe of a stiff and pretentious film. And one is better off to save pretension for some winter Oscar Bait. No wonder Captain Jack wiped the floor with this flick. Superbore is more like it.

comment #35

Rossi says ...

Astral, you haven't seen either film and yet you are making judgements about which is fun and which is pretentious and boring?!

Just wait until you see the mess that is Pirates of the Caribbean. I saw it last night and it was not even close to fun. We kept looking at our watches hoping that it wouldn't drag on any longer.

comment #36

Rich says ...

As I understand it, in the current Superman comic continuity, he loses his powers for a year and is forced to live as Clark Kent. He actually enjoys it because he is able to focus on his job and he accomplishes great things.

Just imagine if the movie had tried something like this. It could have been awesome. Clark keeps trying to make time with Lois, but he can't go too far because he doesn't know if/when his powers will return. He actually gets to watch her pine for Superman and then turn on him after he doesn't come back right away. They could have the same "does the world need Superman?" and Richard White plots, and jettison the superkid. It would make many of the same points, without the fundamental alteration of the character. Oh, well. Maybe next time.

comment #37

Anonymous says ...

JESSE said "I guess I'm just having trouble with two things. 1. That you can find the Spiderman movies to be correctly balanced, but the X-Men movies (which I would say are in a similar tonal ballpark, if not exactly the same) too serious and dour and pretentious."

I'm not NYCBB, but I'll respond. I found the Spidey films well-balanced (and the 2 best superhero films) because you're dealing with one character, so you're allowed to explore characterizations much deeper. The X-Men films are about themes more than characters. Aside from Magneto & Wolverine, we don't know much about any of them outside of what they do and some personality quirks. This is ambitious and fruitful (in a limited sense), but with so many characters and so many good intentions, the films just spread themselves out too thin. I'll be honest in saying that I liked X-3 much like I liked "Jurassic Park 3" (which I found the best of the JP films), because it delivered engaging sequences and didn't try to bite off more than it could chew. There's nothing wrong with aiming high, but if you do so, you're obliged to deliver more.

As for SR, there were too many convenient parallels with the first film not to notice that it was significantly inferior in just about every way (w/the exception being the most meaningless of items, the FX). "Batman Begins" was a terrific film because it knew what it wanted to be, branding itself apart from its predecessors. SR was a mess, and as much as I continued wanting to like the film throughout, it constantly kept reminding me how this was done much better the first time around.

comment #38

ArchiveGuy says ...

Whoops--that was me above.

comment #39

oddDuck says ...

I'm sorry, I just have to say that I think X3 was the biggest pile-of-shit of a comic book movie that I've seen in recent years. I simply can't imagine anyone out truly believing that it is in any way comparable to SR in terms of filmmaking quality.

comment #40

Tom says ...

SR tanked because it was terrible.

1) If I had wanted to see a Superman battling Lex Luthor in almost the same way that Donner's Superman did in Superman I, then I would have SAVED $9.50, stayed home, and watched the SUPERIOR version of this same movie for free (well maybe not free when you consider how much Pay TV costs, but it's cheaper than $9.50) on Cinemax and HBO.

2) When I go to a movie about a Superhero, I expect for the majority of that film's dialog to be SPOKEN by that Superhero. Lois Lane did most of the talking in SR. Routh's superman did little more than stand-in for action scenes that looked like a cross between Claymation meets The Matrix.

If Batman Begins had featured Katie Holmes speaking 75% of the lines, I guarantee that movie would have tanked as well.

POTC2 is far from perfect, but at least it's ORIGINAL! And st its main star has personality. The only personality in SR came from Kevin Spacey and he wasn't in enough of the scenes to enable many people to remain awake during its 2 1/2 hour run time.

comment #41

oddDuck says ...

Tom, Batman had hardly any dialogue in Begins. I don't think Spiderman really talks all that much in his movies either. As far as Superman's personality, that's a tricky problem to deal with. Face it, Superman is pretty square and un-edgy. I thought Routh worked fine given the character.

But really Tom, you really place SR's special effects on par with "claymation meets the matric"?!? Get real.

comment #42

Astral Weeks says ...

Rossi said: "Astral, you haven't seen either film and yet you are making judgements about which is fun and which is pretentious and boring?!"

I'm basing my hunch on the general buzz I've picked up from my friends and colleague’s. Generally it's been thumbs up for Pirates and Thumbs down Superman. Personally I don't have much invested in the performance of either film. I find it hard to care if one corporate tent pole beats own another one.

Do you guys think that the failure of Superman is the start of a downturn for comic book films? (Chance would be a fine thing).

comment #43

Tom says ...

"Tom, Batman had hardly any dialogue in Begins."

Since Batman doesn't appear until the 2nd half of the film, I guess in a way you're right. However, Bale as Bruce Wayne HAD PLENTY of dialog throughout the film.

Whereas Routh as Kent and as Superman has like 70 lines total in the entire 2 1/2 hour flick!

In contrast, Donner's Superman features Reeve with loads of dialogue.

"As far as Superman's personality, that's a tricky problem to deal with."

oddDuck, this worn excuse that SR defenders have concocted seems self-satisfying for them, however it doesn't hold up against scrutiny because Donner's Superman proved that Superman could have plenty of personality.

That movie made Reeve a star precisely because he was able to bring energy and vitality to that role. And he wasn't a mute.

"But really Tom, you really place SR's special effects on par with "claymation meets the matric"?!? Get real."

Actually, that's a comment that I've heard many casual movie goers saying about the film especially when it comes to Routh's closeups. There's something about his face as Superman that looks overly made up and a bit pancakey like clay.

I suspect this is also one reason why, despite loads of hype of press tours, Routh hasn't become the pinup icon that Reeve became in the early 1980s.

comment #44

oddDuck says ...

Tom, there's no way SR could have the same effect on the general populace that the original Superman movie did, mainly because the audience's ability to be awestruck has been battered down by huge effects movies over the past decade and a half. Frankly, the original Superman movie had very little competition in that regard. Also, I just flat out disagree with you on Routh -- he was just fine. He's in a no-win situation because Christopher Reeves has become this larger than life legend that people point to as the perfect Superman, and I suspect a lot of that has to do with the passage of time and also the tragedy he faced later on. I'm not knocking his performace, just saying that people are perhaps overpraising it due to outside factors.

comment #45

Mathew says ...

I'm thinking that SR also is failing to connect with the 'street' culture. I don't remember seeing a single black person in the film. I'm not implying that they should of cast Chris Rock as Jimmy Olson which I believe was the plan in a earlier incarnation. What I mean is give the film a vibe: Like the scenes when Superman was taking on the Phantom Zone villians in downtown New York (Metropolis).

Superman Returns just felt really square.

comment #46

Tom says ...

"Tom, there's no way SR could have the same effect on the general populace that the original Superman movie did, mainly because the audience's ability to be awestruck has been battered down by huge effects movies over the past decade and a half."

And the excuses keep coming.

Maybe they should have thought about that before handing over $200 million to Singer in funding.

Oh that's right ? They spent so much on that movie because the film industry didn't have much difficulty in regard to the 'over saturation of the film industry by the comic book motif' when it came to Spiderman II or even Batman Begins.

Maybe it's just that SR, like some of the other comic book adaptation attempts, wasn't really that good.

Routh is fine as Superman, but he's not great and someone in a role like that needs to be great like Bale and Reeve are/were.

I appreciate your die-hard fan boy SR sentiment, but something tells me that Spiderman III will be a megahit next year, thereby helping to dispel this notion that comic book adaptations no longer appeal to the public.

comment #47

oddDuck says ...

Tom,

I'm not trying to make excuses for anything, and am not a "fanboy". I simply enjoyed the movie and strongly disagree that it was, as you say, "terrible".

I said nothing about over-saturation by comic book movies. I simply made the point that the original Superman was much more of a big event phenomenom in its time because there was so little else like it, and that is a part (not all) of why Reeve became such a huge sensation. So don't put words in my mouth when we're just trying to have a reasonable discussion here.

Also, You're an asshole.

comment #48

Rich S. says ...

I'd be careful chalking up appreciation for Reeve's performance as "sentiment." Go back and watch the first movie again. Reeve's Superman lives in a far more cynical world than Routh's (or perhaps even ours).

Reeve's performance is so stunning in part because you really get the feeling that his Superman knows exactly how ridiculous he looks and acts, but doesn't care in the slightest. Yes, he's a boy scout, but damn if he doesn't really get a kick out of it. And, I think, it's because Reeve does, too. He may be a "man out of time," but he knows he looks good as an icon and he revels in it.

Singer, and, unfortunately by extension, Routh, never make that critical step or connection. Don't get me wrong; they do a fairly decent job. But without that unshakeable confidence from within in the icon itself, the joy is lost.

comment #49

Jon says ...

Superman came out around the time of Jaws and Star Wars. Besides those movies, there weren't many other high effects movies. So yeah, it was groundbreaking for it's time.

comment #50

oddDuck says ...

Rich, not sure if I agree entirely with your point, but it's so well made that I almost have to!

comment #51

Rich S. says ...

oddDuck,

One scene I'm thinking of in particular was played for laughs, but it sums up my point nicely. Clark has changed into Superman and he's about to go into action. A "colorfully dressed" black guy walks up and says something along the lines of "Yo, man! I dig your outfit!"

Reeve's reaction is priceless. No smirking. No wisecracks. Nothing to let you "in on the joke." He simply raises his finger and says "Excuse me" and takes off. It's a fleeting moment, but a gem.

comment #52

akabob says ...

"Superman: The Movie" is great. It works as an action-adventure, comedy, romance and epic. It just gets better as time goes on. Chris Reeve is fantastic, and believeable, as both the heroic Superman and clutzy (somewhat) fool of Clark Kent. One of my favorite moments is at the end of Superman's first night on the town when he saves that kitten up in the tree. A sweet and perfect moment because Reeve convinces that he would stop to do just that. Then, the little girl runs into the house to tell her mother about the man who flew out of the sky and saved the kitten. You can hear the mother smack the kid and scream about how she told her to stop lying all the time. Post-Watergate, a more cynical time, perhaps, but certainly a film that crosses a number of genres and effortlessly ties them all together. Also, a very worthy addition to the many great New York films of the '70's.

comment #53

ArchiveGuy says ...

The only thing SR did better than the first, IMHO, is capturing the "alien"-ness of Superman's predicament. In some shots he almost resembled Kubrick's Starchild, with an other-worldly quality, gazing down on Earth in a benevolent, almost-paternal way.

But Routh in general is simply not good. As Reeve portrayed him, Kent was a klutz, but it was all obviously an act (remember the showdown with the mugger and the gun in the original). Superman has these people pegged, and knowing these Earthlings well enough to know what his best disguise would be shows Supes intelligence.

With Routh, Superman has regressed. Now he's genuinely insecure & nerdy, which wrecks havoc with continuity if we're supposed to believe this all happened after S2. Superman is a Man, but though Routh may be the same age as Reeve, this hero is less a man and more a Boy (both in appearance and in temperement). And in the first films, you honestly believed that Lois was Clark's friend; you were invested in the relationship because LL might be impulsive and flighty, but she was still worth catching. Bosworth's Lane doesn't give a crap about Clark, is more stupid than impulsive, and is career-oriented in a completely negative way.

Heck, even Spacey's Luthor is less-developed here (and don't get me started on the thoroughly idiotic "real estate" venture; Lex is supposed to be smart!), and the film as a whole is so humorless and self-serious, that there's no relief from all these painful reminders of what a half-baked concoction this is.

comment #54

Wrecktum says ...

Hey, Wells, when is that "bad word of mouth" going to start affecting Dead Man's Chest's boxoffice?