Cool News
Vash The Stampede Doesn't Completely Believe A Man Can Fly!! (UPDATED: Languatron's Bane Review Added!!)
SPOILER ALERT !!
UPDATED 10:20 AM 06/16/06 CST USA
Review from Languatron's Bane added. He "whines" about the movie's "Geek problems", but likes it all the same.
Vash The Stampede wrote in with this review of SUPERMAN RETURNS. Wait...there's a new SUPERMAN movie coming out!?!?!?!?!?!?
In short, Vash pretty-much likes the film - but does have some issues with it.
Beware...
MINOR SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!
...but they aren't too bad.
Here's Vash...
Just got back from a screening of Superman Returns.
Know you have had a
bunch of looks, but figure one more can never hurt.
So first thoughts, I
can't quite think of anything that is out and out wrong with this flick.
Everything is done so tastefully, with so much reverence for the character,
and so much love for his world that it's almost too difficult to fault the
filmmaker's for just about anything in the picture... Except for one
problem that I know some of your other contributors have mentioned.
But first, what works about this movie.
Visually, it's very simple, never calling too much attention to its self,
but still managing to feel entirely fleshed out. You get the sense that
With the attention to detail, people actually inhabit these spaces and they
Weren't just constructed on some sound stage. The work of all the
designers, from sets, to costumes, to CGI artists is top notch (it better be
For 250 million dollars come to think of it).
Performances also work. There is no real heavy lifting required on any
one's part. Amongst much more established costars Routh acquits himself
well. By the next one I see him having even greater command of this role.
It was a wise choice to cast performers like Routh and Bosworth who will
grow into these characters even more. (Imagine if this was Nic Cage, oh
dear...)
Ottman does a wonderful job of using his score to keep the action moving
forward. He makes the appropriate nods to Williams and never tries to
indicate or point out the obvious by tugging our sleeves to FEEL (Imagine
Hans Zimmer scoring this...)
I've always admired Singer's ability to command the various elements of a
film and bring them so tightly together that you often are left breathless.
The high point of the film is the incredible airplane rescue that ends with
Superman's glorious "RETURN" in a baseball field. I was left grinning from
ear to ear.
The issue at hand here though is this return happens within the first act of
the film. From here the film switches gears to Lex Spacey's (that's
intentional by the way) adventures in real estate. This gets to what I
thought was the major issue with the film. It's not entirely the most
compelling conflict that the film could be built around. With his balding
mane I almost worried that Lex Spacey might be the slightly more grounded
older brother of Dr. Evil with his own Kitty (Parkey Posey) by his side.
With all the other elements of the film operating on such an accomplished
level, you wonder why a richer conflict that encompassed greater themes was
not crafted.
For example it is hinted that Lex Spacey suspects that Lois'
child is in fact Superman's son. Why would Lex (who hates Supes for putting
him away for five years) leave the kid on the boat to just "maybe" drown?
(Like supes would not save the kid). This after the kid even kills one of
Lex's henchmen with a piano. (Is that enough proof the kid has superpowers
or what?)
Imagine the collateral Lex would have if he took the kid? How
far would superman go to protect his son? (And remember this is not just
Superman's son, but also Clark's, imagine Clark walking around everyday with
the thought his son may never know him). That's a pretty rich emotional
conflict that could have easily created a heart racing climax.
But what do
we get? Lex builds a really ugly island that I'm convinced no one would
ever, ever, want to live on.
There were ways Clark's emotional life could have greater been tied into the
fabric of film, involved his mother even more, and still featured many
incredible set pieces. It's that emotional rush that lingers much more than
the most eye popping of effects.
So is the film a let down? By no means.
You'll get your money's worth I
promise. It's just that if Singer and his boys were committed enough to
create such a rich world and great characters, to take risks with the
mythology by giving Supes and Lois a kid, why didn't they take the extra
step to give him a conflict and an antagonist who truly provided a dramatic
crux for the film?
If Singer pulled that off then we would never doubt that a man truly can
fly...
Now, here's Languatron's Bane with a similar perspective...
I don't get press passes
to movies all that often, since I live in the wrong state, but a fortuitous
visit with a friend yielded a seat at a recent Superman Returns press
screening, and I was so excited that I soiled myself. That is, I
figuratively soiled myself. You're welcome to check my shorts if you'd like.
It's been a few days since I got back, and it hadn't really occurred to me
to write a review. That would be cheating, wouldn't it? (Not really sure
what that means.) But as I read the other reviews posted here, I thought
I'd try to get my two cents in, since there are a few things I think they
missed. Plus, I'm better looking than most. (Uglier than some.)
The big question gets an affirmative answer: Yes, this is a good film.
Visually, it's almost overwhelming. They seem determined to do all the
things they couldn't do in '78 with people hanging on wires, and they more
than deliver. It would take more wires than all the orthodontists in North
America could muster to duplicate the shuttle plane rescue sequence that
marks Superman's real return, yet I couldn't help thinking that it was just
the helicopter sequence from Superman: The Movie on steroids.
Which leads me to one of my biggest beefs with this flick - it is SLAVISHLY
devoted to the original Donner film. It's eerie, really. Anyone who said
this is just a pseudo-sequel is kidding himself. (Or herself, I guess, but
come on, who are we kidding? A woman reading AICN? Please.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: To diffuse the inevitable influx of e-mails and Talkbacks -- women DO read AICN. Whether or not they can stomach it is an entirely different issue...
This is more
Superman II than Superman II ever was. Yes, I know that the original II was
supposedly part of the backstory, but visually, the entire template is drawn
directly from the first film, and the plot points and references demonstrate
a fetishistic obsession with Movie #1, with only oblique references to the
second film. (Don't want to get to spoiler-y, but as many of your reviewers
have revealed, the big "twist," which isn't really a twist to anyone with
six brain cells, calls to mind the second film's arctic bedroom set.)
When Supes cautions the plane passengers not to give up flying because
"statistically speaking, it's still the safest way to travel," I let out a
mighty sigh. (See, Chris Reeve said the same thing to Margot Kidder after
the non-steroidal helicopter dealie. Ha ha! Just like Movie #1! Only on
steroids!) Most folks didn't catch the reference, as far as I could tell.
I'm a geek, so I got it, but I didn't know quite what to do with it. This
was just one of a multitude of similar "in-jokes" that felt less like an
affectionate nod to Movie #1 and more like this movie is psychotically
stalking Movie #1. It's like Singer keeps dialing Donner's phone number just
to hear him breathing on the other end.
Which leads me to another beef - the Brando footage. Call me crazy, but I
didn't really notice anything that wasn't in movie #1, except maybe the
stuff at the fortress when Lex first arrives there. I had always assumed
that using Brando was an opportunity to finally give the world the sequence
that I've always wanted to see - Jor-El sacrificing himself to restore his
son's powers. It's not there. Which means that Singer just used Brando as
more food for his fetish. I honestly don't get it.
See, for most geeks like me, Superman is a lot more than the Donner film.
Yes, some plot points - the plane, Luther's yacht - were likely lifted from
John Byrne's Man of Steel comic miniseries, but that seems contractually
obligational, not like the kind of sloppy French kisses Singer keeps
planting on Donner. (Which reminds me. Isn't Singer thin, single, and neat?)
As has been noted elsewhere, Clark Kent has not been portrayed as a bumbling
fool in the comics since - well, since the Donner film. Yet here he is, in
all his doofistic glory. It doesn't really bother me in terms of continuity
- you can't cram nearly thirty years of intervening comic book history into
a flick like this, but Singer doesn't care about any other source material
other than Donner. This movie is the ultimate paradox: it manages to carve
new ground and tread water all at the same time. Which is really not that
big a deal once you get used to it.
Enough whining.
Brandon Routh is great. Seriously. There's enough Reeve in
him that he wins you over quickly, but this role is definitely his now. He
looks younger than Reeve, but his voice is deeper, and he actually seems
more gravitas-y than even Reeve did. That may be blasphemy, but Routh really
sold the flick for me.
Kevin Spacey is tremendous, too, although he seems
more hampered by Hackman than Routh does by Reeve. Spacey's venom is more
fun than his camp, but I think that's because the campy Luthor never really
sat well with me even back in '78. Spacey delivers, but I still don't
understand why Lex Luthor hangs with Otises and Miss Tessmacher/Kitty
Kowalskis. (Parker Posey stinks, I think, but unlike many geeks, I always
think Parker Posey stinks. I saw her in a play in New York with Matthew
Broderick called "Taller than a Dwarf," and she was perfectly wretched. I'm
not sure how much of my dislike for her was a spillover from that
experience. But you'll have to admit that whatever you think of her
performance, her character's pretty stupid.) Luthor doesn't surround himself
with incompetents in the comic books, but, again, nobody involved here cares
about comic books that Richard Donner hasn't read.
The only real departure from Donner is Katie Bosworth's Lois Lane. And, to
be honest, she didn't do much for me. Yes, I think she's too young, and -
here's what's weird - too pretty. A little too sweet. Singer goes so far out
of his way to recreate Donner, and then he changes Margot Kidder's
frying-pan-faced spitfire into Katie Bosworth. No matter what you thought of
Kidder, Bosworth is out of place in the surrounding Donner lovefest.
(Actually, Kidder, to me, is the definitive Lois Lane, even more than
Christopher Reeve's Superman. Which means I'm nuts. So take what I've said
about Bosworth with a heavy grain of salt.)
All in all, it was a great night at the movies, and I wasn't disappointed.
My geek problems are represented here in far greater proportion to how they
affected my enjoyment of the film itself. I just hope that in future
installments, Singer can carve new ground without treading water.
Thanks for the write-ups, folks. Well done...
-
+ Expand All
-
first?
-
first... My first, first...
-
With generally positive reviews, I'm witholding judgement until I see it for myself. With that being said, I trust the man who brought the X-Men to the screen so well won't screw up the greatest superhero ever.
-
Great until the villain shows up. (Doctor Doom, anyone?)
-
and by all accounts this movie will have been worth the wait. I find that a lot of the negativity towards this film is based on a virtually unknown lead (Routh) and some liberties that Singer has taken with the foundation of Superman. Now, I'm in NO WAY comparing Routh with Chris Reeve, but as far as I can recall, Reeve was pretty much an unknown before donning the cape the first time. For the most part he was a theatrical performer. And HE WASN'T EVEN THE STUDIO'S FIRST CHOICE!! he studio originally wanted Robert Redford. He turnde it down cause' he didn't think the concept would work. So in steps Reeve and thank God right? I'm willing to let Routh have the benefit of the doubt. He does have some mighty BIG shoes to fill and we have to be able to cut him a little slack in that regard. As for Singer's liberties with the plot, ya know, I'm gonna go ahead and trust the guy that gave me The Usual Suspects and the first 2 X-Men. I'm dustin' off the Supes baseball cap and the sweet ass Supes baseball jersey I bought a few years ago and I'll be sporting them both when my ass is in line on opening day. I look forward to seeing many of you faithfuls right there with me.
-
...the evidence:
http://tinyurl.com/jf8tq -
It's all he can talk about these days. Well this and trying to convince a midget to fly over New York with balloons strapped to his wrists and ankles.
-
These criticisms seem to be of the variety "I expected it to be great, and it was, now here are a few niggles". Like "The Godfather was too long" (it was), and so on. Just think what we'd be hearing about McG's Superman... or Brett Ratner's (gulp). Different league.
-
Is THE funniest thing I've read on here. Ever. Now, that second review is how a FUNNY yet honest and well-thought out review should read. Not "Hey! Look how ca-waaaaazy I am! Me! Me! Me!" But, just very observant and witty, making its points clearly without hyperbole. Great reviews! And, the image of SR 'stalking' S1 makes me laugh out loud. Seriously.
-
really looking forward to this...im a huge fan of the first 2...these reviews/crits sound pretty valid though...the first 2 reeve films really were all about the characters and emotion and motivation with the set pieces being secondary i think...hope thats the case here. using the same "dont be afraid to fly " line is lame...i wish this had been made as though it were part 3 and not just a remake or sorts. i guess they felt they had to split the difference for a new generation?
-
The 2nd review is a very good read, so is the first but I also think Kidder is THE definitive Lois and I HATE Kate Bosworth, so I'm biased. I guess it would suck to be Superman Returns right now since it just pissed me and many others off with it's dull lacklustre imitation of a film from 30 years ago. Loved it then want something new now. Only a few more years til Professor Victor Singerstein's Donner Resurrected is put out of it's misery and Superman is rebooted good and proper for TODAY'S AUDIENCES, like we fucking deserved.
-
The line "Nice 'S'" makes me chuckle every time.
-
The first two movies were fine, but I would much rather have a new movie. Like typewriters were fine 30 years ago, and I can still appreciate a typewriter and what they did for typing, but it's 2006 and a lot has happened since the 70's, and I want to use a word processor! That said, the costume looks fine, the cast looks fine, the director is a good one, but I just can't get past the fundamental character changes they've done to Superman himself, and re-using a 30 year old plot.
-
She is the definative Lois.
-
I've heard crazy things, like Krypton never exploded and Superman drowns and things of this nature.
-
And Abrams can direct, keep the cast if you like, (cept Bosworth, she's crap dump her), and just close the curtains on the Donner franchise. Treat this film as some kind of fever dream, just have Clark step out of the shower at the beginning calming Lois' nerves and reassuring her that Superman 'RERUNS' was just a bad dream.
-
Kidder's Lois Lane was just loud. Come on, Supes -- you can have any woman in the world, and you go for...that?? So I'm glad Singer didn't try to duplicate that one. Frankly, I can't wait for this movie -- in fact, I've already bought advance tickets for the 27th.
-
But having Luthor Luthor Luthor gives the impression that you have this Godlike powerful man, and all he ever does is fight a weaselly human bald guy. It makes him look like a punk, quite honestly. There are plenty of good villians to choose from: Toyman, Metallo, intergang, Parasite, Mongol, Darkseid, Bizzaro, Doomsday, Brainiac, and others, and hell, throw in Luthor too if you want. Of course with quite a few you would have to significantly alter them in order for them to fit into a film world. Obviously it would be a waste of time and fanwankery to have the Darkseid you have in the comics, that would be way too high fantasy for a Superman movie, just like Shi'ar would be too "out there" for an X-men movie.
-
On second thought, Superman IV was very likely the worst film ever made.
-
Man, that sounds horrid. Yeah, I'll take one order of giant spiders please with a side of gay robot sidekick. I read that Rob Liefeld thought they should have made the Abrams script and that it would have been the best superman film ever. Given what you just told me and given Rob Liefeld, that makes perfect sense.
-
Love him, but Gene Hackman WAS Lex!!! AND Valerine Perrine was GREAT!!
-
Plus, I've heard whispered rumors about Kevin Spacey. Isn't he a vegetarian?
-
In the comics Superman came back due to the Eradicator(a kryptonian artifact) using his body as a solar battery to power himself and later overuse caused him to resuscitate. It was actually handled somewhat similarly in the Smith script, which might have been good if not for the crazy limitations and demands Jon Peters made on him. I would have loved to see that movie just because it would be hilariously bad. Polar Bears attacking Brainiac, a gay-R2D2 version of Otis. Oh man.
-
Sure, Dana Delaney. Sure, Kate Bosworth. How about that cutie from Smallville and Phyllis Coates in her prime? Now we're talking.
-
CUTIE? ERICA DURANCE? CUTE? WHAT? No, no, my dear boy, that girl is a definate "Butterface".
-
We've really lost touch with the character.
-
somebody else besides Lex all the freaking time.
-
Why wouldn't he fight other aliens aside from other Kryptonians?
-
what's the story with MELTING OWL & UNSOCIABLE HAMMER? just curious.
-
There hasn't been one negative review yet. Pretty unbelievable. And the first review talking about Supes child and Lex sounds like Harry complaining that Matrix Reloaded should have had Werewolves and Vampires.
-
This is certainly not a butter face in my opinion. http://www.erica-durance.org/gallery/displayimage.php?album=105&pos=20
-
He just flies around saving people. Which, in my opinion, is the weakest aspect of this flick.
-
The whole new gods/apokolips/new-genesis thing is too out there. Now you could take the same essential character and make some minor changes and he'd be fine. Instead of all that, make him an alien overlord seeking the destruction of the universe and the anti-life formula. Now make him believe that that formula is on Krypton. Then make him responsible for the destruction of krypton after not finding it, and later finds out that one child survived and is on Earth with some kryptonian technology, giving him hope that he may yet find it. He already has some agents on Earth in the form of Intergang, members of which include Metallo and the Toyman. There ya go. It ties him more directly into Superman and Krypton's fate, as well. But motherboxes highfathers and new gods are just right out.
-
Jun 16, 2006 11:59:12 AM CDT
Give up, Snookeroo you are talking to an internet male
by engineer_at_peac
Every woman is unattractive and ugly, except for the one HE likes.
-
Why? Well first of all Christopher Reeves already did Superman right. I have lots of problems with the Donner movie, but at least Super-man was amazingly done. Second of all, Superman is kind of the Micky Mouse of Superheroes. A giant icon - yet somehow sucky and boring. People may want a superman poster or a micky mouse bedspread as kids, but the comics they love ar spider-man and batman and hulk. and the disney character that gets the laughs is Donald Duck. Third, the studio was faced with an almost impossible task to get this thing back up and running. The other scripts were disasters. Reeve is such an icon they could barely replace him, and the origin story was already done so well int he Donner film they could hardly just "restart". So - my point - this movie will be a giant ball of mediocrity and revisitation. But I never expected anything else from the tepid character that is Superman anyway. I'll pay my $12 bucks and watch the flight graphics and hope that Lex makes me laugh now and then. Really - its all you can hope for when you mix Hollywood safety and Superman Shiny Happy these days.
-
I understand why Singer felt a need to "pay homage" to Donner, especially with the vile that remakes are looked upon with. So may simply weren;t ready to move on, however I myself wish Singer would have trusted his own vision and completely restarted the franchise with a new Jor-El a new Krypton, the whole deal. In the end I think we will have an amazing film despite the nitpick, if you can get past the horrid suit in Begins surely you can forgive a few retreads. The biggest gripe I have however is Luthor, not just because he's moved beyond being campy in the comic (although with the most recent issue not so much anymore) buit because I don't see that characterization working with modern audiences and I wanted him to feel like a real threat not some campy madman joker knockoff, but a stoic ruthless silently evil man. Ah well, I still can't wait for the film and I'm sure I'll be grinning ear to ear come the 27th at 10pm.
-
Take it back, jerk! Superman is awesome, and one of the best. He is neither sucky nor boring. Though I wouldn't blame you for thinking that if your only exposure to him was the Donner films.
-
It'll be interesting to see what Singer does with the sequel, if he just goes into a *giving us a re-imaginging of Superman 2 we always should have had*-schtick with Jude *Chair Leg* Law as Zod, then fired up by that simple demonstration of such a singular lack of imagination we will be perfectly justified in dragging him out of his LA condo and burning him along with all available copies of Superman 4 in a big ol' whicker phallus. I agree with Terry_1978 we're not wanting a Ken Loach film here.
-
Sorry 'bout the bizarro-spelling and grammar there...
-
You hear me!!!!
-
The two really have nothing to do with each other, except in Smallville.
-
Why would an independent reviewer feel the need to guarantee us that somebody elses product will give our money's worth? There is a growing garden on this site.
-
Superman is not only a father, but the boy also has Superpowers at 6 years old????? And yet not many complaints, despite the fact it's the opposite direction from the comics and have been stated that Supes can't father a kid with a human, and yet Singer and company just goes in and change this, and no problem with Harry and his faithful followers. Also add to the fact that the phucking kid has powers at age six when Clark never did until he reached liked his teens. That's ok as well. Phuck all you mofos who bitched about X3. I hope SR tanks. Singers is already going in and making drastic changes to the characters, so who'll be changed next? Darkseit, Metello, hell no cause we'll get 3 films probably and Lex will be the villian in all of them and he'll end up getting Superpowers somehow to take on Supes, or worse yet a rehashing of Superman 2 will be the next one with some kryptonian villians showing up, Zod and crew no doubt.
-
But you're wrong. The movies were based more on the Silver-Age superman(in fact, there was no mdoern-age Supes yet), and he did have powers as young boy. Hell, he lifts up the truck in the first movie right out of the rocketship. And it hasn't really been stated either way whether Clark can have a kid in the comics. Even if it were, it's a pretty fucking minor point. "Can Clark have a kid?" is not nearly as important as "Would Clark have a kid out of wedlock?"
-
Sure she looks good in photos, but if you notice, her face really shows the signs of botox and plastic surgery. Watching her on Smallville, her face just seems so stiff. Now maybe it's a medical condition, and if it is my bad. But if its indeed cosmetic, then its a real shame. I mean the chick is in her late twenties, besides the severe laugh lines how ugly could she have been? I'll let the implants slide. But if Letterman can pick on Kenny Rogers for cosmetic work that's barely noticeable, Erica is fair game. And as far as best Lois Lane of all-time? I gotta go with Allison Mack. Yes, I said Allison Mack. Her character is more "Lois" than any actress who has portayed her.
-
I have often said that they need to mix Mack and Durance to get the "real" Lois. Now, what up with MELTING OWL & UNSOCIABLE HAMMER?
-
Maybe she(Chloe) is more Lois than any live action ones, maybe. I haven't really seen much of the old stuff, though from what I have they were very much the Lois of the times. But the animated Lois wins in my book. But as far as Erica is concerned, I see where you're coming from. You basically have two standards for women. One for women you would see on TV/Movies/Modelling and one for women you would meet in real life. It's fine to have those two different standards. For instance, girls with implants don't really bother me in real life, I have no problem with them and find myself attracted to them, but I hate implants on models and actresses and find it unattractive. I don't really find Erica all that attractive by the higher standard, the actress standard, though by any normal means I find her to be a very beautiful girl with pretty minor imperfections. Minor imperfections are magnified, however, in a star, where we expect even more for them to be perfect. Erica looks great, but I meet women every day who look as great, but compare that to a girl like Salma Hayek or Scarlett Johanssen, the kind of beauty you just don't randomly run into. Of course beauty is subjective there I'm sure many of you don't find them attractive, but to me there are basically two scales. My 1 - 10 scale for any woman I meet, and a 1 - 10 scale for "beautiful celebrities", but this sub-scale is between the values of 7 and 10 on a normal scale. So while Erica Durance would be an 8.5/10 for me on the normal scale, which is high, convert that to the second scale and she's a 5/10, which is pretty low.
-
So WHAT if Singer rapes Donner's movie? He's still got two sequels to make (well, he may bail on the third movie...) which will deal with other things. Routh is playing Kent like Reeve, 'bumbling'. This is MOTHERFUCKING ESSENTIAL because, here's an idea for you, THIS ISN'T A FUCKING COMIC BOOK and you can't get around the fact that if he didn't do 'bumbling' Clark people would realise he was really Supes. 'Bumbling' Clark is to achieve that 'is he Supes? Clark's what...6'4? ...nah.' moment from that clip. If he was just normal in front of everyone it would suck harder than Singer on a night out with Spacey. Fuck you. Go read your Dark Knight series motherfucks.
-
Supes is past his prime. Name-check his popularly-known villains...Lex Luthor. Darkseid would probably top the fan list for other villains. Now, who else? Mr. Mxypltz or whatever? Supes has no good pantheon of dirtbags. He's good at battling cosmic threats and natural disasters and fucking with Jimmy Olsen. He doesn't have a bunch of villains like Batman...Joker, Riddler, Two-Face, Penguin, Catwoman... right there - more villains. Yeah, I wanna see this. But, I don't know how or why I'd invest in a Supes franchise. I'd rather watch more Hellboy or more one-offs like Shazam, Green Hornet, etc. Hell, bring back the goddamn Rocketeer or Darkman. I'm excited to see this, but doubt I will be praying for a follow-up. Theoretically, a Supes movie could end in 5 minutes. "Ooh! A meteor threatens the earth! Superman pushes it off towards the sun. Yay!" or "Ooh! A bunch of Iranian nukes all launched toward us! Superman carries them into space. Yay!" I mean, really.
-
So what the hell are you saying? Every review has been fabricated? You're an idiot.
-
when I see this....http://www.popoholic.com/photo.php?id=erica-durance-pictures-08&title=Erica%20Durance%20FHM%20Magazine%20Pictures
Me likey! Oh, and I totally agree with you on Scarlett and Salma. I am just trying to argue that Erica is not a butter face. Peace and chicken grease. Which, btw is what Kenny Rogers did to his face. He stopped in to one of his chicken shacks and fried himself a new face. -
Jun 16, 2006 2:08:13 PM CDT
"Maybe she(Chloe) is more Lois than any live action one
by performingmonkey
As far as I know, Smallville IS live action. A while ago people were all saying how they were certain that a twist in Smallville was going to be Chloe changing her name to Lois Lane as a reporter alias. Sadly, this twisted fanboy fantasy was fucked over when they brought in Lois. Teri Hatcher was good as Lois. Kidder looked like a 40-year-old 40-a-day whore. Reeve deserved better.
-
10000 or 50000 or 100000 or whatewer $$$ to write mispelled reviews so that they look real and they get to pick their nicknames too. What's that to 50mil$ promo campaign? Imagine if they could spend 500000$!!!
-
Durance has the right sarcasm and attitude of Lois but Chloe has the right intelligence. But neither is the full package of what Lois should be.
-
"Theoretically, a Supes movie could end in 5 minutes. "Ooh! A meteor threatens the earth! Superman pushes it off towards the sun. Yay!" or "Ooh! A bunch of Iranian nukes all launched toward us! Superman carries them into space. Yay!" I mean, really". -You know, coincidentally that was exactly what the old Max Fleischer cartoons were like.
-
Stretching is good for you. You should get off your fat ass and try it some time.
-
I was just trolling a little. No harm meant. Sorry for the stretch. I was too lazy to use tinyurl. Sorry for the fat comment as well. I will be happy to talk Superman from now on. I bid you peace.
-
I have a real girlfriend and yes, she does call me Turd. Since you asked.
-
e. Because someone stretched the talkback. You know, it wouldn't be that hard to write code to fix this and force something like that to have linebreaks. Not hard at all. While we're at it, it wouldn't be hard to code in actual linebreaks themselves, so people could have, you know, paragraphs. And performing monkey, I mentioned live action because I was comparing her to Dana Delaney, the voice from the toons, and saying she was superior, but that for live action, he may be right on Chloe. Now onto people who say Superman is "past his prime". No way. No fucking way. He's still one of the greats, and could easily build a franchise. The only reason his other villians aren't as widely known is because Hollywood refuses to touch them. And it isn't because they are bad villians either. People I know who think Superman is lame think so because "He's invincible, nothing can beat him. That's lame. And he turns into a kitten with kryptonite around. I could beat him with a hunk of kryptonite." No, that isn't Superman. He's not invincible, he can be killed, and he faces foes that could do it all the time, and wins, relying more on intelligence, courage, and perseverence then super-strength. That's what makes him great. And kryptonite doesn't have nearly the exaggerated effect it does in shows like Smallville.
-
Now if only someone could stretch their imagination.
-
More fair in this thread then I was in the other one. Hope I am succeeding.
-
I just realized that my talkback appears as usual. Anyway, my appologies if I did it. I agree with Engineer that Superman is not invincible. It has been in place a long time that magic can hurt or kill Superman. I think there was an issue that featured Lex or some other bad guy looking for Excalibur.
-
I have a theory that every rock band gets allocated three groupies no matter how bad they suck (sadly there are usually 4 guys in a band which either leads to band tensions or double penetration depending on the amount of drugs involved. but I digress...) Similarly, there are going to be some people, like you, that LOVE superman, and most importantly, super-man comics to death. But Im sorry - by and large Superman comics are boring for exactly the reason we talked about - he is TOO powerful. Thats why they tried to make him stupider and less powerful with his post-Crisis re-start. But since his limitations arent well known the powers creep back up all the time. He's also such a boy scout that its hard to make him three dimensional. With Batman we can see some real tension. An angry underdog. A dark knight. With Peter Parker, we get really novel powers and a worried underdog villain. For whatever reason super-man doesnt tap into those areas, and as a result his comic books tend to be boring. Im not saying superman is a huge failure or anything. He's iconic. Millions love him. But millions of people love Mickey Mouse too. Its just that neither of them is allowed to really get their hands dirty.
-
Even really strong guys can hurt him. There was nothing magical about Doomsday, and he killed him. Mongol has come pretty damn close, as have Manchester Black, Fernus, and other non-magical, non-kryptonite, non-red sun entities. And Furgesen, I think you must have a widescreen monitor or be at a high resolution. I'm at 1080 by 768 right now, but I could probably up it to 1152 by 864 and no longer have this stretched.
-
Talk about having no respect for superman. While Batman was over living the nightmare of Knightfall and having his spine broken by an evil mastermind, Super-man gets beaten by a mindless ogre with a giant super-punch. God that sucked.
-
Does he tell her he's Clark Kent at the end of the movie? It seems like something she should know....
-
tweaking the talkbacks is a good idea to allow for paragraphs and line breaks (although I think that secretly they keep them paragraph free to keep the posts short), but I hope they dont give them too much forum functionality. I like the basic crude talkback the way it is.
-
very well said. I am not just saying that to kiss your "fat" ass either. And to Engineer, you are being more than fair. Has anyone else seen that issue with the plan to use Excalibur against Superman?
-
Not to rub it in. Sorry guys.
-
Rotten Tomatoes has the first negative review of Superman Returns. Although the guy sounds like a he has a complete vendetta. He says every actor is awful, the action is terrible yadda yadda. The fact that he's so overwhelming negative and every single other review has praised the things he rips, makes me think he had his mind made up before he saw it. He thought the cape's red was too dark...
-
came close to killing Superman too. He's one of the cooler villians Supes has faced.
-
...that became so popular he got his own series. He was never to be really taken seriously though.
-
If somone in a review stoops down to complaining about the shade of red in the cape, or how small the S-shield is(or for that matter if they stoop to praising it), discard that review.
-
Somebody needed to say it.
-
I imagine that Doomsday would play out better on film anyway. Lobo wouldn't translate to a fight on a epic scale. I think it would make for a great Act II to have Doomsday "kill" Superman at the end of the next one. We all know that there will be a sequel to this outing. The guy on Rotten Tomatoes is a tool. Most people has gotten over the costume update. Besides, what I saw in some of the trailers, the red actually looked a little deeper and richer especially when the sun was lighting it from behind.
-
is all that I have ever used and that was a few years ago. You wouldn't want me developing a roll of film let alone a website.
-
you get Supermans costume wrong?
How is that possible........what is this guys problem with comic costumes?
The X-Mens costumes were all wrong too.......don't ever let this dick make another comic book movie.
He is WAY out of his depth.
-
Im new here so be gentle huh?
Well, with all the spoilers, I have a good idea of the tone of the movie. Which means it'll have a more "realistic" edge to it. So saying that. The next logical step is have Luthor come into possession of some of Supermans hair or something. Take the only plot point of 3 I believe. Using the DNA he uses it to create another being to kill Superman, ala, Bizarro. Have the ferocious battle and bring in the fact that Supes gets his stregth from our yellow sun to the forefront. Thats how he
finally beats Bizarro. Big solar explosion or something and at the end show a comet of sorts with a familiar bone cragged hand imprisoned in it. (Doomsday) Just a thought. -
I've been dying to see Doomsday done in a live action movie since the "Death of..." story came out. But if they do Doomsday, HE MUST KILL SUPES! No pulling the Justice League Animated crap and have him just be another powerful super villain.
-
has a pretty good idea. I like the visual of the bone cragged hand jutting from the comet. I agree with Ky-el that they have to kill Supes in the end how they resurect him is another story.
-
...the Star Wars prequels' reviews. Basically saying that the movie was less-than-passable but they liked it. I think the moment hype on this movie wears out, people will really see it for what it is. Just like the SW prequels.
-
I don't know Hank. I think after episode I, the prequel hype was overwhelming negative for just about everything SW related. Die hard Supes fans like SupermanHomepage say this movie is phenomenal.
-
...but you are most likely right. Now, if you check critic review at Rotten tomatoes, all prequels are considered "fresh" movies. Back on the Superman Returns topic, I consider myself a major fan of Superman, but there's no way I'm going to see Bryan Singer's movie.
-
Yeah - I love the Fleischer toons. At least they padded them a bit with an occassional "Supes got the wind knocked out of him by the falling building" to build suspense.
-
Fair Enough Hank. I'm curious though, what would you want from Singer's movie to get you to see it being a Supes fan?
-
I wouldn't waste your breath. He'll be there. He may say on the net he won't but I'd bet my own mother father and son that he'll see it in the cinema. If he's a real superman fan that is... but then, to SAY you are one, and to BE one are two totally different things now arent they.
-
A true reboot would have been better without the Donner fetish, but it sounds like it is at least palatable and nice visually. The Donner films are kind of sucky overall, but do have their moments.
-
Yeah I just have the feeling that all people that are taking shots because of the "Donner fetish" would be complaining if Singer didn't take that approach. You really can't please fanboys. I feel bad for Singer.
-
sure you can. its just that in any artistic endeavor, no matter what you do someone isnt going to like it. And there are a ton of different fanboys. at least fanboys, unlike most of movie going america, sit on the internet and tell studios what they want. God help the maker of the romantic comedy - oh, how he must flutter about in the dark.
-
"a great night at the movies, and I wasn't disappointed." ____ "Yes, this is a good film. Visually, it's almost overwhelming." Sounds to me like the guy liked it, fanboy geekdom aside.
-
"It's like Singer keeps dialing Donner's phone number just to hear him breathing on the other end."...the absolute best line I have heard in a review on AICN. Maybe the best thing I have readon this site since the Hunter Thompson obit by some cat in NC. Seriously. Hire this guy NOW! No he is not me. I am a creative writing professor and this is good stuff.
-
This is not deserving of the most popular, most recognizeable, number one, iconic superhero of all time. Furthermore, it's absurd. Comic canon has established how Kal can procreate with humans. If he did so with Lois once he became human in Superman II, then his child would be mundane. But the child is not. Once again, Bryan Singer adapts a character to the story he wants to tell instead of adapting a story around the known property. Fine, he did this with X-Men to much success. Fine! But I'll be damned if I patronize his warping of the number one comic property beyond any recognition. Go exorcise your own personal demons elsewhere, Bryan. We know you were adopted. We know you are a homosexual. We've gotten over it. Why can't you?
-
Meant to write, "Comic canon has established how Kal can NOT procreate with humans." Way to go, Bryan. You took what the audience could subjectively INFER from Superman II and rubbed our faces in your own personal interpretation. I hate this man.
-
i wouldn't care if it was a verbatim remake of Superman 1&2, i would see it. bryan singer can do no wrong by me, nor can Superman. already bought my Imax tickets.
-
what was this about Dana Delaney, again? She's dreamy.
-
Canon has not established superman can't procreate with humans. Even Chuck Austen alluded to the possibility when Lana asked Clark why he and Lois haven't had kids.
It's an unknown.
-
Are you kidding? After all the ComiCon debate that Diana Prince is the only woman that could conceivably bear Kal's offspring? Do you consider yourself a true fan? Do you even glimpse to understand what has happened since at least the Byrne years? More like supes1m (read Singer plant #457), "has not established superman can't procreate with humans.
-
Like a wide variety of jaded X men fans still moaning because that peice of shit film X3 was softly excreted from Ratner's ass into their collective lapping mouths.
Get over it. And die already.
Anyone that presumes to WANT a film to fail lacks both integrity AND creative or artistic sensibilities.
Fuck. All. Of. You. Harshly and often.
Superman has returned so, all the nasty little generation Y'ers with their cynical, banal, assinine ways can go fuck themselves and watch 6 or 7 hours of violence of ADD induced visual imagery geared towards those incapable of not drooling if a shot lingers in a scene more than 2.5 seconds.
God damn I hate armchair movie critics raised on Mtv that can't differentiate between a film, and a consecutive series of explosions patched together that someone has the audacity to call a motion picture.
Superman has returned.
So ass hacks can bend over and prepare to take it superstyle now.
Rant over. -
Now that's how I want to see Superman, even though all the heroes would be past their prime, it would still make for a killer film, probably better than this one.
-
The definitive Lois has to be Dana Delaney's version in the animated series.
-
Why? Because if Superman 2 is canon and the post-coital scene in the fortress of solitude is supposedly this kid's conception, then the kid CAN'T have superpowers because Lois and Supes didn't sleep together until AFTER he surrendered his powers in that chamber of red light in order to be with her. In othre words, when they did it, HE WASN'T SUPER! So how does a kid get superpowers when, at the time they slept together, BOTH of his parents were mortals? I'm not buying it, but I still look forward to seeing the rest of the movie.
-
I also have seen the film and wish to discuss further -- you know, comparing notes like two geeks properly ought to. How can we chat outside of this overcrowded joint?
-
All of this speculation about the feasibility of Supes love child having his abilities and powers is tedious to the point of lunacy.
The exact process of what the chamber did to Supes wasn't expanded on to any degree.
It very well could have simply inhibited his cells from being solar collectors, rather than a complete DNA rewrite.
God almighty help me Im arguing the science of Superman on a fucking message board.
The point being, it's Superman. He has powers. We dont know exactly why or how, or what mechanism makes him super. And you know what, we don't fucking need to know. The physics and physiological why's and why not's of a fucking comic book character need NOT be dissected to enjoy a GOD DAMN movie.
Let's move on to bigger fish to fry. -
He can only take us so far.
-
would've been heavenly. Bosworth is not. I'm pretty sure the second review is right on about this steaming pile of shit that is Superman Returns. Hopefully this will flop and then we can get a real Superman movie instead of Donner pt. 2. Fuckin' WB fuckin' it up again.
-
You guys are talking about the superpower properties of Superman's semen. Only at AICN.
-
and Starwars etc.
All the elements where already done in last Supes movies.
It's an update rather than anything else.
Also think about the thumbsukaz, teens and pre-teens, they are gonna have there pants and knickers blown off! Then get them to watch Superman 1 & 2. Get my picture?
We are the generation of "the original is better!" Just enjoy it. -
,too much aspartame.
-
Deadbeat dad indeed, I wonder if Lois can claim for five years worth of child support... the ultimate runner. 'Yes your honour, he left our GALAXY!' lol
As for supes shagging Lois in the fortress, well yeah its true he WASN'T super when they boned. But then, it's only loosely attached to Donners works. But then I always wondered why in part 2 it was possible for him to get his powers BACK when Jor El told him they would be gone forever? -
use this idiom on yourself - because you used this same phrase more than once in your article. The shame. Oh - and Superman is shit.
-
Yeah, but there haven't exactly been any glowing reviews either. It's like with the first "X-Men" movie; at this stage, everyone's just glad it didn't turn out as bad as it could have. Also, bear in mind that the only opinions out there so far are those of our fellow hardcore geeks... it remains to be seen what the general public will think of: A) a skinny, gay Superman in a ridiculous, re-designed costume B) a Lois Lane who looks like she just graduated from the 11th grade C) a long, long awaited "sequel" that turns out to be a note-for-note, beat-for-beat rehash of the original. PREDICTION: This will re-define the word "meh" and will not exactly set the box offices on fire, at least not after the first weekend. Try again, Singer... like you did with the much-improved "X-2". And for crying out loud, ditch Luthor. Give Bizarro, Brainiac or Mr. Mxyzptlk a shot.
-
I don't like that at all. The first two Supermen were good movies, but they had their share of corniness, and it was thirty years ago. Considering the amount of comics available to find plot from, why couldn't they just reboot the series? I mean, the Batman series was only from a decade ago, and they didn't make Batman Begins a sequel to Returns. And while we're at it, Tim Burton didn't make a sequel to the Adam West camp-fest. I just think with the amount of time it's been since the last Superman movie, maybe we deserve something new.
-
She's got no boobies.
-
In one review, the writer insinuates Singer is gay, and whines that the movie pays to much respect to the Donner classic.
Guess what?
1. The Donner movie is how most people KNOW Superman (thanks to TBS and other cable networks)
2. The gay people are coming to get you and will force you to do nasty things.
-
to this debate. First of all, Supes kryptonian mother (not Jor El) tells her son that if he chooses to be with a human, then he has to become human. Basically, the chamber changes him into one of us (and also supplies him with fashionable evening wear) in the middle of part II before Supes and Lois
-
Rant all you want immortal fish, there has been no offical answer to the procreation debate in the current Canon.
You're wrong.
As for a singer plant. I hate the idea of a super kid and this this is a huge mistake. Yep, I'm a singer plant all right.
Idiot.
-
Immortal fish, if you were a true superman fan you would understand what Superman stands for. Instead you insult, rant and rave. You're the type of person Superman fights against.
The problem with the super kid goes beyond childish conversations about super sex , sperm, etc.
A true Superman fan understands much more is at stake. It's the fundamental change to a 68 year old mythos. Superman becomes superdaddy. Not a good thing for the comics.
The set up in the movie is horrible. It's like an episode of Maury. "Superman: you ARE the father"
Disgusting.
-
That being said, I'm looking forward to seeing this film. One question though...now that phone booths have gone the way of the dino's, what the hell is our man in tights to do?
-
We've had Byrne's reboot, Dean Cain (yeah show sucked but at least Clark wasn't a dufus), the 90s Superman cartoon, etc...Now we're back to goofy Clark? Maybe Chris Nolan can have Bruce slide down the Batpoles with Robin shouting "Holy Nightmare!"..just for old times' sake.
-
Told you so. That Supes wouldn
-
have either you guys seen the movie? no? then shhhhh. mack, would you rather have The Rock play Superman? you really seem to want someone with big ol' muscles to play the part, but no, you aren't gay.the donner movie(s) set the standard for the modern day comic-book movie, as did christopher reeve's performance set the standard for the modern day superman/clark kent, so deal with it, its what we know. and roboteer, i guess after reading a few (positive) reviews, you get to say "i told you so"? maybe you need to actually see the movie first. by the way, X2 was very good, but like almost all movies of this nature, it wasn't perfect. i could've done without the entire reservoir/dam finale. anyways, how about we all see the movie first, then if you guys feel the same, so be it; but at least you'd have seen it and your opinions would be based on experience.
-
of Superman VS Brainiac which debuts tonight on the cartoon network. (pre DVD release)get yer Tivos ready!!
-
It's because of all the development problems this movie had over the years. Everyone knows the tortured history of the project. WB couldn't figure out a new take on Superman. They were getting their ass kicked by the Marvel movies, so they just decided to remake what worked before. They hired Singer, who knew the Superman movie inside and out, but never read the comics. He was willing to pay homage to Donner because Donner's wife hired Singer for X-Men. The point is that this movie was not born out of inspiration or passion for Superman. It was a corporate decision backed by Hollywood networking and politicking.
-
Ky-el, you are right on the money. If Singer had done his own vision of Superman, no matter how close he had come to the ideal vision that comic book readers have of him, there would be a legion of whiners complaining that he should've followed up Donner's vision. I saw someone here griping about the way Clark is still "bumbling and clumsy". If Clark is stoic and at ease with himself, his true identity could seep through. He's chosen an image SO unlike Superman that no one would possibly mistake Clark Kent for the Man of Steel. That's just common sense.
Whine on, cry away...it'll all be the same at the box offices, as it rakes in our dollars. -
Actually,
Bill explained it best in Kill Bill 2.
Clark Kent is the false persona, Superman is the real persona.
Clark Kent is how Kal-El views and percieves humanity: vulnerable, awkward, evolving, needful, innocent, and naive.
The "bumbling dolt" persona works best. My God havent you people ever seen Prince Adam and He-Man??
heh heh
-
met in high school (five minutes ago). It is just not appearing believable that they have this deep, serious relationship as the dialogue clearly suggests (as well as the circumstances). And of course, if you are starting from that point, then this is a problem. It seems like actors playing the actors from the other Superman films. In a way, it's sort of unsettling.
-
after just watching the clips, I gotta say, this isn't looking all that hot. Nice Smallville nod in the "Story of Prometheus" clip though. And for the fucktard that said that he wanted a whole movie of the kid......um, that clip of him growling with a wastebasket on his head leads me to believe he had to be joking with us. Sure there wasn't any acting from the brat. But watching it, I was hoping someone would kick the little bastard over. And don't get me started on Routh......(I'm holding judgement on him til I've seen the film, but from the clips, he just can't hold a candle to Welling....of course I am a bit biased, but it's the god's to honest truth. He may look like Reeve, but so far, Singer would have been better off casting Marsden as The Man of Steel. At least Lex [LOOKS] decent.)
-
then don't see the movie. save that hard-earned money and buy yourself the Superman 1&2 dvds so you won't have to watch them "thirty fucking times on television".by the way, there was some pretty good music happening 30 years ago(actually 28 years ago since supes 1 came out in 1978); stones had just released Some Girls, Springsteen's Darkness on the Edge of Town, zeppelin's Presence...could go on and on. its like you're hating the movie just to hate it, SEE THE FUCKING MOVIE, THEN TALK SHIT IF YOU MUST.
-
If they didn't release that Yankee Something animated movie of his which looks like such a jingoistic abomination it will muddy his name. On the other hand, maybe it could force a return to 2-d features!
-
Singer could have done his own take on Superman and still given props to Donner. The Williams theme, Brando footage, and Reeve dedication would have been enough. He didn't need to redo the origin, but he certainly could have used new villains or gone back to the comics for story ideas. As I've said, the movie we're getting will be a version of somone else's version - a copy of a copy.
-
I find it difficult to argue too much with Superman I. Gene Hackman plays Luthor for laughs, true, but because he's GENE FUCKING HACKMAN it works. Could Lois have been cast better? Sure. But Reeve was simply Superman. The Ma & Pa Kent stuff was simply note perfect, an amazing little piece of Americana filmmaking that betters anything Spielberg ever did and which struck exactly the right tone for the film. The "reveal" of Superman in Metropolis during his "debut night" beats every other comic book film out there for handling that sort of thing. And the movie has Brando. Of course, II has some silly stuff in it, but it was hugely entertaining as General Zod: The Movie. The villains stomping on Apollo 27 or whatever # it was supposed to be and then going on their little road trip through small town America all the way to the Oval Office is simply great stuff. I could have done without the flying plastic S, but you can't have everything. So I don't really see how anyone could describe the Donner films as "pathetic", unless they were just so attached to one animated version or another that they simply couldn't deal with a reasonable film version designed for general appeal.
-
"Superman is an icon. His image is known by most everyone in most all countries that can claim any sort of literacy."
Yes, people know of the character Superman...
"He is known despite all half-assed attempts (and there have been many) to portray him in any media other than comic books."
Most people don't read comics...
"Donner's movie needed to be jettisoned into the Black Hole of forgotten cinema"
It was a blockbuster. Most people who live in reality (not fanboydom) think of Reeve and the Donner movie when they think of Superman.
A month from now, when SR has set box office records, I suspect you'll have a few records of your own: The most hotpockets and Dr. Pepper's consumed at a computer while spreading your fanboy wisdom and telling the critics and the moviegoers they are wrong.
Record setter.
Epic.
Blockbuster.
moviemack whines, "It ain't true... (sob!) It sucks!... " -
"Vash the Stampede?" I mean, am I really gonna take a manga kid's advice about a movie based on a real comic? I think not.
-
Actually, Bill explained it WORST in Kill Bill 2, because he got it totally backwards. Clark is the real identity and Superman is the disguise. Bill is actually describing Batman, not Superman. Your geek-fu--much like Tarantino's--is very weak.
-
Think of it this way. How many superheroes actually show there faces as part of their uniform. I am sure there are a few more besides Superman, like Wonder Woman, and Aqua-man, but the point is, is that they don
-
As any fanboy with an ounce of comic book knowledge knows. Bruce Wayne died the day his parents were killed and the Batman was born. Batman is his true identity and Bruce Wayne is a disguise/ruse that he must keep up by attending black-tie functions with supermodels on his arm... But he would rather be out stopping crime on the streets of Gotham. Superman, on the other hand, is a perfect example of nurture winning out in the nature vs. nurture debate. He is an alien with god-like powers that could easily subdue the entire planet under his rule. Why doesn't he? The reason is simple: Because he was raised by the Kents and he REALLY IS Clark Kent the midwest farm-boy. That's why an alien being fights for truth, justice, and the American way. Because he really IS Clark Kent. If there are any other Tarantino worshippers who would like to step up and get served, please do.
-
How can you possibly justify that rationale?
Kal-El is the last son of Krypton, he was BORN Superman.
Kal-El is the true persona.
He takes OFF the Clark Kent disguise to reveal Superman, he doesn't put the Supes costume on, it's ALWAYS there. The Clark Kent persona is his dayjob. It's Kal-El's way of assimilating into society and culture.
Clark Kent is Kal-El's adopted persona, just as his humanity is adopted.
He isn't Clark Kent pretending to be Superman, he is Superman pretedning to be Clark Kent.
Does he act the part in solitude? No. Bruce Wayne dons a cowl and modifies his behavior when he becomes Batman. He becomes an agent to inspire fear. Superman dumbs himself down to become Clark Kent. It's really simple, and you speak of servings? heh heh -
If the Clark Kent persona is who he really is and not a disguise, why does he have to wear glasses? I hope you don't say, "step up and get served" out loud.
-
Clark being Superman's alter ego.
-
great post fluffyunbound...hilarious post joequest...and jar jar 4 prez, you are just plain wrong.
-
Speaking of which, does everyone remember that Garbage Pail Kids card "Clark CANT???" Bwwwwah hah hah God that was so simple then but hilarious. Good times.
-
But only because he changed his mannerism from when he was a kid in Smallville to the nerdish Clark in Metropolis, to hide . Even in the Cartoons when Clark went home he didn't take off his work clothes. You guys are reaching a conclusion that you want, not a reality that is.
Before there was a Superman there was Clark Kent. Methinks you guys are just trying to bash Smallville and just don't have any smarter way to do it. It's a goofy show, but it cements the fact that Clark is real and Superman a disguise. He uses the Supes disguise to hide his good deeds. Kinda like the many faceless, nameless, cops, firefighters, military folk, paramedics so on so on.
Didn't James Caan do a movie called ,"Hide in plain site"? -
character than Superman is because at least he's HALF human, and probably not invincible. That's always hurt the superman story in my eyes... the only way he can be hurt is by kryptonite and that shit is everywhere at the worst possible time. It's just oh-so-convenient.
-
Yeah, but how is he half human? If, like some of them have suggested, this is loosely linked to Supe II, Kent was "human" aka powerless when he slept with Lois. Therefore, the kid shouldn't have any powers at all, right? But then again...who really cares?
-
When Supes goes to the Fortress of Solitude and is just chillin' and shit, is he in the Clark Kent outfit, or the Superman outfit?
-
For the most part. SWAT doesn't go into a hostile situation with t-shirts and shorts on only. How many here works a job that requires you to wear a uniform/costume? Is that you or is it you before you put the costume on.
-
Firstly, no one is dissing on Steaming pileville, frankly I dont care enough about the program TO infact diss on it.
There are some perverted and distorted views on Superman being vomited around on the site and I guess it's time for a history lesson- because it isn't that difficult.
Little Kal-El was born on Krypton shortly before it's destruction.
His noble father decides the shit about to go down won't affect his only son, so he sends him to Planet Earth.
Little Kal-El is discovered by Ma and Pa Kent in bumfuck U.S.A. and he is instilled with all of the white bred, Wal-Mart shopping, conservative views an alien can be spoon fed. Hence Clark Kent.
Superman for the first half of his life is very much a character with amnesia. Amnesia as to his true idenitity and origins.
As he discoveres his true identity and origins, Kal-El adopts the persona of Clark Kent as his disguise to the world. He is Kal-El, the last son of krypton and Earths greatest champion. He moonlights as Clark Kent , a mild mannered reporter at the daily planet because it best puts him in the position to be on top of the news, rather than Clark Kent, your mild mannered Wal-Mart greeter in Bum fuck U.S.A (BONG!!! You have activated Wal-Marts automatic inventory control blah blah "This looks like a job for SUPERMAN!")
Let's review.
Kal-El adopts the persona of Clark Kent to the world so he can save people and so that his enemies cant hurt him. He WAS Clark Kent,before he knew who he TRULY was. He discovered his inner Krypton and made Clark Kent a role.
If nothing else, you can argue that Superman is the ultimate schizophrenic and makes the petty little personality issues of a Batman or Hulk or morality issues of a Wolverine or whoever, look like Jungian shit smeared in Freudian poopie.
-
Who? SUPERMAN! A Job, it's his second Job.
-
Call him by his...What? Name? Clark. Thas right. Wonderwoman and Bruce wayne call Clark, Clark in or out of costume.
-
Stick a fat one down your mouth and choke on it tool.
If you can't comprehend the dynamics of a fucking comic book character, I'm not going to waste my time sititng here trying to explain it to you. Asshole. -
That's true Gandalf.
Has anyone heard anything else new about the new version of Supes II being released on DVD? There was some buzz about it but since then it's been quiet. Hmmmmm -
I had a conversation with Mark Waid about this last year. There's Smallville Clark, aka weekend Clark or at home Clark and there's Metropolis Clark. Metropolis Clark IS a disguise but Smallville Clark is real. Kal is who he was born and Superman is what he can do. So in essence Kal and Smallville Clark are the same person whereas Metropolis Clark and to a lesser degree Superman are both disguises.
-
Unlike the idiot above who knows nothing about nothing, but his own hate. Now You my friend Obo can not only eat my dick but balls and the stool I'll be dumping on your face and neck. Lap it up moron.
-
Clark Kent is the secret identity of Superman. Kent, as opposed to Superman, is traditionally presented as behaving in a more introverted or "mild-mannered" manner compared to his superheroic self. John Byrne's The Man of Steel revamp drops many traditional aspects of Clark Kent in favor of giving him a more aggressive and extroverted personality, including making Kent a top football player in high school and a successful author. Recent storylines restore elements of the earlier "mild-mannered" version of Kent.
-
the costume: The spandex looks great, the colors are very pleasing, I like how the
-
Jun 19, 2006 1:18:06 AM CDT
zooch, you PLANT! It's not an ADAPTATION of a comicbook
by regicidal_maniac
It's an ADAPTATION of Richard Donner's 1978 Superman The Movie. Singer never read a comic in his life. He loves Donner's film, not the comics or even the character. What's he gonna do next? A quasi remake sequel to Jaws? If that fucker touches Bruce the shark I'll keeeel heeem.
-
You're pretty much fucking retarded. You refuse to acknowledge the evidence presented to you. You say: "As he discoveres his true identity and origins, Kal-El adopts the persona of Clark Kent as his disguise to the world." Wrong! He grew up as Clark Kent. He parents and friends called him Clark. When he raised his hand to be called on in school the teacher didn't say "Yes, Superman, can you name the first president of the United States?" The Kents didn't call him "little Kal-El" as he was growing up, they called him Clark. He was Clark all along and BECAME Superman later in his life to try and help people. That's because he really is Clark and Superman is a disguise that he uses to do a job. These facts are not just known by people like me who have read the comics, watched the movies, and worked in comic stores for 15 years. These facts are known by anyone who even has a passing familiarity with Superman's character. You, Bill, and Tarantino are completely wrong and no amount of whining or swear words will make you right... So just give up already. To summarize: You're completely wrong and uninformed and you simply take anything that Quentin Tarantino spews as fact because you're a complete fucking moron who can't think for himself.
-
No, I do not say "step up and get served" out loud. That's because I never meet any people as stupid as you in my day to day life. The only place to find your level of idiot is here at good ol' AICN.
-
I never said you say, "step up and get served" out loud. I asked you if you did. Read it again before you decide to comment. By the way, I didn't type my last post; I copied and pasted it from the Superman mythos. Great thing about the world is that people have different opinions and points of view, and then there are people that condemn others for not sharing theirs. Nice!
-
I never said that you said that I say "step up and get served" out loud. I was simply responding to your asinine comment, as I am now. You copied and pasted your post from the "Superman mythos"--What the fuck does that mean? You're a complete fucking moron. Learn to write a coherent sentence or I will be forced to serve you yet again.
-
The Superman
-
What the fuck are you talking about anyway? You clipped your post from the entire history of the character? You clipped stuff from the Golden Age of Superman for your post? You clipped stuff from Infinite Crisis in your post? You don't even make any sense. You're such a retard that you can't even figure out how to cite a source. You're just rambling and not making any sense at all... Just give it up.
-
The guy is Clark. Period! He was born Kal-El and was raised as Clark. He then later when he was all grown up that he is from Krypton. That doesn't change how he was and who he identifies himself as. Like Lazarus stated any half a fanboy knows that. And all the fucking other heros call him fucking Clark. All. The Fucking Heros, including Martian Fucking Manhunter. And can that name be any more gay? I mean really Manhunter. So can we dweebs please move on to something like why was Chloe made to use Lois Lane as her Non de Plum.
-
I'm starting to write like you jagoffs with all the misspelling. I meant why Chloe didn't use Lois Lane as her writers name. Gawd. I must get my cool back. I'm going to watch a movie you all will probably hate so I cleanse myself of geekdom before someone I know finds out Iv'e been writing on AICN.
-
Where did I suggest remaking The Godfather? Read it again, I'm not gonna bother explaining what I meant if something as easy as my post couldn't be understood!
-
It sounds to me like you need to go BACK to working at the comic book store cocksucker, because your pedantic, insipid, juvenile logic merely serves to reinforce the fact you wasted the majority of your life reading comic books when you SHOULD have been in college you fucking wank tool cunt.
Don't presume to lecture me on ANYTHINg as an authority you peice of shit.
I SAID Clark Kent is the false persona and thats fucking good enough for ME, so go jerk off to Smallville you half baked ,sawed off, Trisby 21, chromosome missing, mongoloid looking cocksucker. -
It sounds to me like you need to go BACK to working at the comic book store cocksucker, because your pedantic, insipid, juvenile logic merely serves to reinforce the fact you wasted the majority of your life reading comic books when you SHOULD have been in college you fucking wank tool cunt.
Don't presume to lecture me on ANYTHINg as an authority you peice of shit.
I SAID Clark Kent is the false persona and thats fucking good enough for ME, so go jerk off to Smallville you half baked ,sawed off, Trisby 21, chromosome missing, mongoloid looking cocksucker. -
Hah! That's all you got--A string of swear words and a "I said it, so it's good enough for me!" Yeah, that's logic all right. You're the fucking retarded cretin that needs to go to school. For your information, I graduated college with a 4.0 in English Literature and I fucking hate Smallville. So... That's just two MORE reasons that you're an idiotic waste of skin. You've got absolutely nothing and I'll lecture you with authority on every subject that I know more about than you--Which, apparently, is just about everything. You have officially been OWNED. Give up now.
-
One more thing: Do you even have any fucking idea what the word "pedantic" means? The question is rhetorical because you obviously don't. Suck a fart straight outta my ass!
-
schizo, but you'd be wrong because schizophrenia does NOT mean multiple personality disorder. Faark!
-
All this time later and I still can't get that out of my head!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 209 total posts 207 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 97 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 144 total posts 77 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 64 total posts 60 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 480 total posts 55 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 53 total posts 50 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 118 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 182 total posts 27 posts