Saw that gay thing before the HPGoF movie.

I was hoping it was the upcoming Aquaman movie. The new superman only seems to have the additional power of a visual sonic boom.

clap.

clap.

clap.

At least it wasn't as gay as the King Kong trailer.

Ace, sounds like you didn't know that it's NOT a remake, but a continuation of the Donner/Reeves storyline (at least the first two movies). That's why it's called Superman *Returns*.

Yes, the movie asks to accept that Superman (and Lois Lane, and Lex Luthor, etc.) are younger than they were in the original movies, but it accepts the same storyline of Superman I & II.

From what I've read, the "Returns" part involves Superman leaving Earth for some reason or another (hence the visiting dead parts of Krypton), and then, surprise-surprise, returning. Lex Luthor is the bad guy.

Oh, and the music is going to be new, but it uses John Williams' theme as the hook. And Brando is still used as Supes' father in flashback (and, apparently, through CGI makes some new scenes as well. . . jury's out on how that works).

Sooo. . . minimal origin stuff, not a retread, continuation of movies (but ignoring Richard Pryor and Nuclear Man. Poor, poor Nuclear Man. . . )

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

BTW, here's the synopsis:

Following a mysterious absence of several years, the Man of Steel comes back to Earth in the epic action-adventure Superman Returns, a soaring new chapter in the saga of one of the world's most beloved superheroes. While an old enemy plots to render him powerless once and for all, Superman faces the heartbreaking realization that the woman he loves, Lois Lane, has moved on with her life. Or has she? Superman's bittersweet return challenges him to bridge the distance between them while finding a place in a society that has learned to survive without him. In an attempt to protect the world he loves from cataclysmic destruction, Superman embarks on an epic journey of redemption that takes him from the depths of the ocean to the far reaches of outer space.

FYI, Lex Luthor is a bald Kevin Spacey. Which isn't gay or anything (hopefully, he remembers back when he was, you know, an actor).

Sorry but the new guy they have to play Supe looks far too effeminate. He has delicate, feminine features and is muscular only in that male runway model way. It's the Man of Steel, not the Man of Tea Tree Oil Rinse and $40 Manicure.

Superman's bittersweet return challenges him to... find[] a place in a society that has learned to survive without him. In an attempt to protect the world he loves from cataclysmic destruction, Superman embarks on an epic journey of redemption that takes him from the depths of the ocean to the far reaches of outer space. Well, I guess it won't be too difficult to find that elusive "place" in our society.

Dumbasses.

Whoops, that was me.

What I don't like is the new, inflated, UPS-ified logo he has.

I've agreed with everything I've seen on this site before: Iraq, Bush, Dems, SCOTUS, taxes, freedom, and the American way, but you've gone too far, Ace. How dare you insult the original Batman? The first Batman movie, with Keaton and Nicholson, marked the return of the comic-to-film genre, and demonstrated that it could be done, and done well. I will not stand idly by while you denigrate this remarkable film.

Guys, that wasn't John Williams' Superman theme. The teaser just uses a trumpet (probably because they hope it evokes the memory of the old theme). Seriously.

the original two Superman films really got that balance pretty much exactly right. They were funny without being campy, wry without being self-spoofing.

Have you actually seen Superman II since, say, you've reached adulthood? It's a piece of crap.

I say this as someone who absolutely loved the movie when it first came out. Seeing that movie was a fond childhood memory. One day I saw that it come out on DVD, and I told my wife how fantastic it was, that we had to buy it. We got home, and I couldn't wait to rip the plastic off it and watch it.

My God, it was horrible.

Not campy? I don't see how this could be appreciated as anything but camp. Superman, with no powers, has to go back to his ice fortress to get them. So he...starts walking to the north pole. And apparently walks the whole way there, in a day (or perhaps a few hours...it's not entirely clear).

The villains that I remembered as ominous were pure cheese. Even the fight scene with the bus that blew me away as a kid wasn't that great.

About the only scene that was still kind of cool was Superman returning to the place where some guys beat him up when he didn't have his powers so he can get revenge. But even that was played for laughs (not to mention being kind of petty and un-Supermanlike).

I have never put that DVD in again. I own hundreds of DVDs, some of which I bought on recommendations that turned out to be stinkers, but I'm kind of possessive about them. Superman II, though, is the one that I'd probably give away to someone if they showed some interest in it.

Looking around the Net, I see I am in the tiny minority in this, that most people loved the movie, and that most people put it in the same class as the first one (which I have avoid seeing so as not to tarnish my memories of that one, too).

Who knows, maybe I was in a rotten mood or something that day. Or maybe I had built it up so much in my mind that it just couldn't meet my expectations.

Then again, maybe I'm not crazy:

I thought it was great when I was nine, but now... oh my GOD!"
-- Kevin Carr, 7M PICTURES

Heh.

That's one of the few negative reviews at Rotten Tomatoes.

They should have done the Superman dies story line from the comic books a couple years ago. Would have at least been a new story line - plus they set up all the other DC comic movies. But this whole thing looks like it's going to be decent at best.

By the way, anyone know which city Metropolis is suppose to be? I heard it once, but don't remember anymore.

The problem with the continuation from the first two Superman movies is the comic relief aspect.

It was fine at the time (Superman I is still a very good movie in spite of it; Superman II less so), but audiences will not go for that now.

They're going to expect a more evil Lex Luth.

I'm actually glad they appear to be keeping the same general musical themes. I'd always liked the Superman theme song.

Guys, that wasn't John Williams' Superman theme. The teaser just uses a trumpet (probably because they hope it evokes the memory of the old theme). Seriously.

That's not the main theme, but it's "The Planet Krypton" theme from the original movie.

Yes, I'm a geek, but I'm in good company.

I'm still sore that Singer stopped his project to remake Logan's Run to direct this.

Pft.

Am I the only who sees a Zor-El/Kal-El is God/Jesus thing in that trailer? "My only son" and all the crap about humanity and swell we might be if we but have someone to show us the way, the truth, and the light?

Geez, I hope Singer is not going down that path. Big and unnecessary mistake if he is.

But then again, maybe it's just me...

Bob, it's not just you. The only thing I liked about Superman I was a couple of Luthor's gag lines. The whole thing just seemed so cheesy. Sort of like the Spider-Man skits way back when on The Electric Company. So terribly, terribly lame.

Come on. It practically takes him forever to catch that missile heading for Jersey, but a few minutes later he's flying a zillion miles an hour in circles around the Earth? Superman's back somehow simulates a railroad track? Lois refuses to stop driving her car til she's caught in an earthquake crevasse? Refuses to stop her car, preferring instead to risk smashing into all those telephone poles? Luthor really believed no one would make the connection when he suddenly owns all that new beachfront property he bought for a song? A mother slapping her maybe ten year old daughter across the face for laughs? Well, ok, I guess I did enjoy that part.

I'm a big fan of Ace, so maybe I'll watch it again, but I'm having a difficult time understanding how even Superman I could be considered better than all of the X-men or Spider-Man movies. Ace, could you give us a round-up post of your reviews of those four movies, and maybe a fresh review of Superman I, so we can see what you're thinking?

Yeah baby! The geeks are out in force tonight, speak to me, my brothers.

I always found the Superman movies campy in the worst possible sense. I remember when I was 10 I watched them on TV with my parents and was cringing at the awfulness. Superman and Lois Lane were both so... dorky.

For my money, Burton's first Batman movie, with Nicholson's hyperactive megalo-maniacal Joker playing off of Keaton's repressed obsessive-compulsive Dark Knight, is the best comic-book to screen flick I've seen yet.

Xmen is a bit too preachy, although I dig it plenty.

Spiderman 1 was great, and a close second to Batman 1. Spidey 2 depended far too much on special effects. What lost it for me was the gratuitous shot of Spidey swooping between a semi truck cab and it's trailer. That was ridiculous.

Daredevil? Has an actor ever been miscast any worse, and consequently destroyed an otherwise decent story?

Supes 1& 2? I never saw it as anything but light fare. A nice attempt for the kids, but not serious film-making by a long shot.

Spidey2 was the best superhero movie. (The whole "no exit but victory" subtext sure didn't hurt....)

Sucks to see Bryan Singer get dragged down into this remake funk.

Didn't he make a halfway decent movie once some years back? Something about a heist or something or other?

yeah, yeah, yeah. I have to stick up for the spidey movies too. Unbelievable. Spidey1 had me leaving the theater in amazement. Best. movie. ever. Then I saw the bestest-best.movie. ever. Spiderman 2.

Steyn even pointed out how its hard to make a superhero movie and do "nuance" when he revied SM2.

Don't get me started on Batman.

That movied sucked rotten eggs.
I will never forgive the makers of Batman for stealing two hours of my life.

Sin City style is the only way to bring a comic book to the big screen.

Losers.

For the sake of space, I'll stick to the DC Comics stuff.

Superman was a GREAT adaptation of the DC comic -- circa 1978. Inconsistent, too much power, yadda yadda yadda. And how anyone can look at Gene Hackman and Ned Beatty and say the movie didn't cross into camp eludes me. (IMHO, the Superman sequel only seems good when you know what disasters the other two movies turned out to be.) But DC revamped a lot in the 80's and the first movie suffers the same fate as comic books from the 70's. They look tired and shallow compared to what followed, something that often curses groundbreaking work.

The comics and the movies work best when the writers are taking them seriously and trying to make them as realistic as possible given the premises. That was an 80's invention. (And please don't start with the Green Arrow/Green Lantern stuff. That was trying to play stories as "socially relevant" -- AKA "agit-prop" -- not realistic.)

Batman I and II were a mixed bag. It had that deathly atmosphere (Burton) and the menacing attitude (Keaton) that worked as a kind of "grit lite." Good compared to what went before; sucked compared to what came after -- unless you mean the Schumacher Batman movies. But the scripts, especially in the first movie, were utter gibberish. Somewhere there must be lawyers still in mourning that Sam Hamm didn't call them before the statute of limitations ran.

Batman Begins rocked with the only exception being Ace's well expressed thoughts on the tedious doomsday scenario. I mean, WTF? Like we wouldn't have been just as engaged if it were about saving even a single child from the right kind of menace? Cheap.

But the gliding thing worked, pace Ace, as long as you were appreciating the dilemma of conflicting orthodoxies. On the one hand, Batman doesn't glide; he swings on a rope. On the other, he wears a visually stunning cape that has become inseparable from the character. So either: 1) He is an unparallelled fighter who swings on a rope in the movies -- but is hopelessly wed to a campy gay fashion statement that screams, "Grab me whenever you want, rough trade, and let's see where you end up when you've snared me"; or 2) there is a plausible reason for wearing such an amazing liability during hand to hand combat. The movie did about as well as you can do with it.

Will the new Superman movie do monster box? The F/X were a huge draw in the first one, as with Star Wars, but I don't see anything revolutionary here. Unlike Batman I and much like Batman Begins, I'd say it comes down to the writing. They get a healthy draw out of the first movie for putting a new face to the defunct franchise and curiousity about what they are going to change. They get decent sales under the same rule radio stations get a bump when they change formats. But that isn't enough.

One of the genuinely funny bits in Superman was the moment of crisis where Clak Kent runs down the street desperately looking for a place to chage and gives a phone booth a quick up-and-down. In the old days, there used to be a whole box there. If they are going to play continuity with the earlier movies, with Superman returning after a long absence, that is the essence of the pic. The temptations for hackery and agit-prop will be huge. The success of the movie and the potential for a renewed franchise will depend on the writers' abilities to exercise self-restraint while doing a quality job.

It's Hollywood. If you believe, I don't want to spoil it.

In case that wasn't clear, I'm betting sight unseen that the new Superman movie is the equivalent of Star Wars: Episode I.

Where is tubby when the bets really matter?

My God, it was horrible.

Have to agree with Bob here, though like him I thought it was pretty cool when it came out. Tim Burton's Batman may be overrated, and may pale in comparison to Batman Begins, but any insinuation that it's worse than Superman II is just crazy talk.

Come on. It practically takes him forever to catch that missile heading for Jersey, but a few minutes later he's flying a zillion miles an hour in circles around the Earth?

In fairness, he's outside the atmosphere when he does that. Shockwaves caused by flying around in atmosphere at any significant fraction of lightspeed would be far more destructive than those caused by the detonation of the nuke he's chasing. He's also not searching for a moving target during his superluminal flight.

Xmen is a bit too preachy, although I dig it plenty.

In that, at least, it's eminently true to the comic.

Daredevil? Has an actor ever been miscast any worse, and consequently destroyed an otherwise decent story?

Lord knows I'm no Affleck fan, in general, and I've never been a fan of DD's book, but for some reason I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. For me the irritants were 1) DD killing someone, 2) radar sense changed to sonar sense for no discernible reason, and 3) black Kingpin (though the actor did well enough in the role).

And please don't start with the Green Arrow/Green Lantern stuff. That was trying to play stories as "socially relevant" -- AKA "agit-prop" -- not realistic.

Quite the can of worms you've left here waiting for some poor soul to come along and open it, Agent :). The complete havoc that has been wrought in the Green Lantern books, both by Denny O'Neill in the '70's, and by Kevin Dooley in the early '90's, is a long, sordid, and sorrowful tale whose full details are probably best left to dedicated comic book message boards.

Yes, yes, the old inside the atmosphere, outside the atmosphere friction argument. But if we're going to wed ourselves to physics, or whatever the relevant science is, wouldn't mountains topple and oceans wash over continents when the Earth's rotation is stopped, or reversed, or restarted? And how exactly did he just take hold of one rock and lift a continental plate back into place? Wouldn't it have just broken off into his hands?

Dang, forgot this. It's been a while, but didn't he pick out Lois' scream out of all the random noise from across the country? Even human eyes look for and lock in on patterns. With his supervision, he should have been able to fly 500 miles up in the air and spot that streak of flame and missile body as soon as he started looking. Or he could have just stood where he was and x-ray visioned through everything til he saw it. He knew where the missile was heading. It's not like it was going to Disneyworld for a quick vacation and then make a sharp left up the east coast, totally avoiding Superman's search. And even when he finally got close to it, he ... caught ... up ... to ... it ... inch ... by ... inch. Like he could only fly three mph faster than the missile.

Even if one said that Superman can't be too powerful, otherwise there wouldn't be any movie, and therefore he had to barely catch the missile, so there would be some suspense, I'm not buying it. After all, he can turn back time whenever he feels like and alter or influence anything he doesn't like. Why not just turn the Earth back a little more and not open the lead box with the kryptonite. He could have caught all the bad guys and stopped everything.

That bad taste in your mouth is the shit sandwich they fed you with that time reversal cheat. Hella weak. I feel like Annie Wilkes, "He never got out of the cock-a-doodie car!!!!!!!"

Sin City style is the only way to bring a comic book to the big screen.

Seriously? Man, that movie was a disturbing piece of shit, in my opinion.

Michael, you gotta be kidding. Don't make a maniac outta me.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Michael was looking forward to Rocky VI.

But if we're going to wed ourselves to physics, or whatever the relevant science is, wouldn't mountains topple and oceans wash over continents when the Earth's rotation is stopped, or reversed, or restarted?

This is a common misconception, but I'm surprised you buy into it since you point out the truth in your very next post. The Earth isn't rotating backwards, it just looks like it is because Superman is moving backwards through time.

And how exactly did he just take hold of one rock and lift a continental plate back into place? Wouldn't it have just broken off into his hands?

Questions like this were pretty much ignored in the comics at the time the movie was made, and they mostly still are, but occasional attempts are made to address them. One version of Superboy, for instance, is a "tactile telekinetic", able to exert his strength over a far larger area of objects he's touching than that actually in contact with his fingers. Those who care about such matters can assume something similar is among Superman's long list of seldom-used and mostly-uncataloged powers, along with Super-Friction, Super-Landscaping, Super-Ventriloquism and Super-Weaving.

Even human eyes look for and lock in on patterns. With his supervision, he should have been able to fly 500 miles up in the air and spot that streak of flame and missile body as soon as he started looking.

Despite its apparent rocket engine, the missile seems to be flying a cruise-missile-like, non-ballistic, inside-the-atmosphere-all-the-way flight profile. One might choose to call this sloppy science for dramatic effect by the writers (and it is), but it does have the added effect of potentially confusing Superman about the rocket's position, which could certainly result in a delay in pinpointing the thing.

After all, he can turn back time whenever he feels like and alter or influence anything he doesn't like.

Perhaps he's smart enough NOT to do this, knowing about the "butterfly effect" and the huge potential for unintended consequences. Even Dr. Doom and Reed Richards, two top-shelf comic book geniuses with access to time travel, don't use it casually. The only comic-book character who really does is Kang the Conqueror, and he wound up with multiple copies of himself (from the alternate timelines his paradoxes created) as his most powerful rivals.

That bad taste in your mouth is the shit sandwich they fed you with that time reversal cheat. Hella weak.

I've watched enough Star Trek to be used to the taste by now... ;) And it's certainly consistent with the quality of the writing in Superman's comic back in those days. Decades of DC's cavalier attitudes toward continuity, time travel, and dimension travel accumulated into a tangled mess that they attempted to fix once and for all in the mid-1980's with a multiverse-wide history-resetting crossover series called Crisis on Infinite Earths. This is why you'll see comic geeks referring to DC's "pre-Crisis" and "post-Crisis" continuity. Underlying attitudes of their writers were not entirely changed, though, and they've had to make similar efforts since then (Zero Hour, and so forth).

Man, that movie [Sin City] was a disturbing piece of shit, in my opinion.

Again, eminently true to the comic book in that regard. Shows the depths the overrated Frank Miller can sink to when his editors aren't protecting an established comic-book universe from the workings of his mind. Mediocre Dashiell Hammet/Mickey Spillane pastiche, way too over-the-top to take itself as seriously as it so obviously does. Some nice views of nearly-unclad pretty ladies (Carla Gugino...mmmm...) are the movie's only worthwhile feature.

Can't someone do something with Captain America?

Better leave that one alone - Hollywood'd have a field day making Capt A over into some tough yet sensitive dissenter fighting to reclaim the concept of patriotism from the cabal of Dr W and the Oil Barge Veterans for Profit.

But I agree it could make a great movie if there was a way of keeping out contemporary political overtones (like say setting it during WWII)...

The first two SUPERMAN movies were great the last two were putrid and especialy the last one SUPERMAN 4 THE QUEST FOR PEACE was the worse

bouquet make bouquet bridal rose silk bouquet bouquet calla lily bouquet flower silk bouquet crystal bouquet hydrangea wedding bouquet daisy gerber wedding balloon bouquet valentine beautiful bouquet bouquet romantic bouquet making wedding bouquet cookie delivery bouquet pink bouquet jewel bouquet lily wedding bouquet cookie make bouquet jewel bouquet tulip balloon bouquet delivery bouquet bridal bouquet spring