Why I Don't Like Superman: The Movie

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Before anything, I want to make it clear that I?m not speaking for everybody, this thread only states my opinion, as member of a young generation. But I?ve asked people inside and outside the board and I can be sure that, while not being the leading voice, I?m not alone when I say this:

Since I have accidentally turned a thread into a Superman: The Movie thread, I think it?s high time I exposed to the public the reasons why I really dislike this movie while being a die-hard Superman fan.

First, if you are no acquainted to my theory of how we enjoy movies, go here: http://www.jwfan.net/index.php?name=PNphpB...viewtopic&t=778 Esentially, it says that you enjoy a movie with two eyes: your intellectual eye and your visceral eye. It?s very hard, albeit possible, to find a movie that satisfies both eyes. It?s a whole lot like listening to a song: you might like the singer?s voice (visceral) or you might like the music/lyrics in the song (intellectual). Both might be as great, but it?s more unsual than only one aspect standing out.

Having said this, I can state that Superman is a very visceral idea. Actually, the concept of a man that comes from another planet and dresses in blue to save people while at the same time work as a journalist and flirt with Lois Lane doesn?t really stand to much thought. Does it make the story less enjoyable? Never. Conclussion? Superman is a story that appeals to the guts, to my visceral apetite. And it does so very well.

Now the movie is a different matter. It does everything possible to flee from my visceral likes. Why, you ask? This is why:

·It?s set in the fifties. You know what makes stories like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings never age? That they aren?t set in any particular time. Kids today feel as close to Luke Skywalker as the kids of the 70?s did. The characters are usually immortal (human problems are always the same), but the setting does a lot to accept a movie. Seeing an escapist movie (and Superman is the ultimate escapism) set 50 years ago just makes it look like a documentary, like a retrospective piece.

·Chris Reeve. He played Superman to perfection. Good for the intellect. But alas, he was never physically belivable as the Man of Steel. He had the thesps, not the thew. That?s why in my mind Dean Cain will always be a better Superman. Sure, all he did was frown and mumble his lines, but he was better build and could fill the blue suit. Chris Reeve just looked like an actor that had gone to gym a few times to not look bad. Reeve = good intellectually, bad viscerally. Cain = bad intellectually, good viscerally. Now which one will work better in a pure visceral story?

·Clark Kent: Here?s another problem I?ve got with Chris Reeve. While he was a good Superman, his Clark Kent was terrible. It?s like he was trying to imitate Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby. But Clark Kent isn?t David Huxley, he is Superman, the Last Son of Krypton. Here, Dean Cain had a better approach ? Clark Kent isn?t pretending to be the biggest nerd on the face of the Earth. He?s just himself, but with glasses on and no superpowers. That?s all. Why he changes all his attitude is something that feels so? out of character. Superman never lies. He just hides his super-powers. Most people don?t relate to Superman because nobody knows what it feels like to be Superman. But most of us do know what it is to be Clark Kent, and if you take this everyday man and give him (us) superpowers, that?s when the story enthralls and captivate us. Anyway, this was vastly overlooked in the film (although Clark did use some of his superpowers).

·Lois Lane: Personally, I never felt Margot Kidder was a good actress, or an attractive one to play Lois. Sure, he had some chemistry with Chris Reeve, but that?s about it. And why is Lois plain stupid? Isn?t she supposed to be the best reporter in Metropolis? She doesn?t even know how to spell!

·Lex Luthor: The greatest villain of all time after Darth Vader. And he is turned into a mere, walking, talking buffoon. Lex Luthor is a bitter man with too much power in his hands, who will stop at nothing to get more power more, the most cruel way there is. But nooo, he had to be portrayed as a looser who can do no better than surround himself of stupid cohorts. Lex Luthor is always proud of his bald head. But here he seems to be ashamed of it. Ashamed,a Luthor? Never. And he isn?t evil. He?s just a greedy, egocentric moron that lives beneath the subway. No longer the darkest, most powerful man in Metropolis. And please, he isn?t even funny.

·The Finale: Okay, so maybe so far the movie has been fun intellectually. Not fun like a Superman movie should be, but fun nonetheless. And then, it happens. A good moment as Luthor throws Supes to the pool with kryptonite and he drowns. And then, what happens? That woman with a long last name saves him. I mean, what the hell? Sure, there?s a moment in every superhero movie where the superhero is saved by the people he serves (literally fruit-throwing moment in Spiderman), but not with the kryptonite. The whole point of the movie should be how Superman defeats his deadly thread, by himself. That?s why he?s a superhero. But it seems like Mario Puzo had run out of ideas and went for the old trick of the bad-cohort-turns-good.

And if his wasn?t enough, there?s the turning back the world thing. Sure, it was nice to have a suspend disbelief moment like that at the end, to underline the non-intellectual, visceral nature of the movie. But it doesn?t work, since the aforementioned reasons have prevented it to work as a visceral movie for the youngest generations.

There are other issues: the relationship between Clark and Lois, how Superman was very Super but never really a Man (just download Test Crash Dummies? ?Superman Song?), etc? But that?s even more subjective.

So, maybe the people who had the luck of being intoxicated by this Superman magic in the theaters in 1978 had their Superman. But every generation needs a new one. We need him to save us, we don?t want to see how he saved you.

Give me Lois & Clark, or Smallville anytime.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

If you ask me you have put far to much thought into why you don't like this film.

The film simply did not connect with you and you try to explain it in somekinda logical manner.

[so you don't like it, big deal, don't beat yourself up about it, and dont excuse yourself by trying to explain WHY you don't like it, you just don't, and that should be enough.

I'm sure that after you become a director and I have seen your first film i will not spend so much time explaining why I did not like it.

BTW, your parcel is coming, your patience has been tried and tested, my apologies.

Stefancos- who dislikes TPM, but sees no reason to search inside himself to find out why he does not like it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

This post was deleted.

[A24 4,346]

But Superman: The Movie is great! The Clark Kent character is been really good developed. Christopher Reeve doesn't make one flaw. The music is fantastic and can't be bettered. Gene Hackman as the villain is brilliant and original (Miss Tessmacher!!!) There are just too many good scenes that is hard not to call this movie great. Not a classic but great.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[scissorhands 16]

I don't like Superman the Movie either.

-Psychedelic F/X: the evils trapped in a mirror, one of the worst F/X techniques i've ever seen. Plus the capsule spaceship of baby Superman is too artificial.

-Bad resolution: If Superman can turn the world to change the past, why should we see the movie: for any problem, turning the world will be enough.

-Boring love story: and a bad Lois Lane; Margot Kidder's performance is simply bad. And John Williams' love theme is cloying. These scenes are too long (the flying sequence with Lois seems everlasting).

-Lex Luthor, a character that should be threatening, it's a mere stupid (as Ross stated) buffon.

-And other reasons, like aesthetic, the (long) running time, the Krypton sequences, etc.

In a nutshell, it's a a corny movie which never decides upon which path to take.

Richard Donner has made better movies (Omen, Goonies, for example). And JW better scores too.

[Lurker 5]

No longer the darkest, most powerful man in Metropolis. And please, he isn?t even funny.

The Lex Luthor you are thinking of is the modern Luthor from the comics and the recent animated series. He was not that way when Superman - The Movie was made. Luthor didn't become a "respectable businessman" until John Byrne revamped the Superman storyline in 1986.

You have really overanalyzed your dislike for the movie. Just say you don't like it and move on. I'll never convince you it's great, and you'll never convince me it's bad. And that's fine.

Neil

[A24 4,346]

Ender wrote:

Give me Lois & Clark, or Smallville anytime.

I'm afraid to learn the other things you like.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Elmo Lewis 6]

If you ask me you have put far to much thought into why you don't like this film.

The film simply did not connect with you and you try to explain it in somekinda logical manner.

Yes yes. Both Neil and you are right. Maybe I'm just too used to overanalyze movies for lenghty projects for class. But boy, did I need to vent that out.

So you don't like it, big deal, don't beat yourself up about it, and dont excuse yourself by trying to explain WHY you don't like it, you just don't, and that should be enough.

Well. Joe's post about my ideal Superman movie some months ago was motiviation enough for me to spend 90 minutes of my precious time on this thread.

I'm sure that after you become a director and I have seen your first film i will not spend so much time explaining why I did not like it.

I look forward to it, more than Roger Ebert's review.

BTW, your parcel is coming, your patience has been tried and tested, my apologies.

Apology accepted. Oh, and thanks.

Stefancos- who dislikes TPM, but sees no reason to search inside himself to find out why he does not like it.

One difference: I DID know why I didn't like Superman: The Movie. I just needed to let it out.

[Magnus 0]

I wasn't all too thrilled by Gene Hackman's performance, (keep in mind that I have only read one Superman comic ever and Luthor wasn't even involved), I thought of him as a really goofy James Bond villain in a sense. Margot Kidder's acting in the flying scene was even worse then the kid with headphones in E.T. when the bikes were all flying. That kids face is burned in my memory forever... it's so terribly over acted. Oh, and one more thing: Someone please tell me if Metropolis is just a made up name for New York. I really don't see the Statue of Liberty in a made up city for some reason :-/

[Guest]

I've probably seen Superman at least once a year for the past 19 that I've been around to watch Superman. One of the best ever. It's still as good today as it was when I was a kid--a baby, even. I'm cool like that. You guys, Mag and Ross, aren't. 'Nuff said. (j/k )

Superman's awesome because Donner directed, Williams scored it, and Noel Neill made a cameo in it. Not so much the last reason as the first two, particularly the second, but I'm going to point out the first one. Donner is an awesome director. He's no Spielberg, but he's darned close. He makes sure you come away from his movies knowing at least one favorite scene. With Superman, there's several: the train race, the end of Kal-El's 12 year trip through the galaxy and back to fly out of the Fortress of Solitude as the Man of Steel, the shirt-ripping scene, the finale when Superman flies toward the camera and SMILES AT THE AUDIENCE! When did Batman, the X-Men, Spider-Man, or the Hulk do that? Yeah...it was awesome when Tobey Maguire ripped open his shirt like that, but he ripped off Superman; Raimi ripped Donner (though tastefully done, I'll admit). See...Superman was so great because the director realized he had an audience that was going to be watching his movie. If anything, he directed more from the aisle of the movie theater than on the sets, in the director's chair. Donner is adept at that. Possibly more than Spielberg. Spielberg knows how to appeal to an audience, but Donner reaches out and touches them. Spielberg only meets the audience as far as the screen will allow; Donner jumps off the screen, walks up the aisle, over to the middle seats, and personally meets you with the characters he creates through his directing. Superman did that in every scene, once Kal-El was grown up. Batman was far from doing that--still a noble effort by Burton and Schumacher, but not as good. Spider-Man just lacks that magic altogether. I forgot that Donner had his hand in X-Men--but he didn't outdo himself; blame it on Singer if you want. The Hulk...I haven't seen. I have no real interest to. It scared the snot out of me as a kid when the reruns of the TV show were on and he's not Superman. Need I more reason not to see it?

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Ross, you must have seen a different movie than I did, cause Superman the Movie is set in the 70's not the 50's.

Read again the post, Joe. Would it have made a difference?

Clark never uses his superpowers in the movie.  Only Superman does.  Its a point of distinction you miss.

Ahem... That mugger scene? I think he had a thing or two with the bullet not hitting Lois. Oh, didn't Percy mention he was a fast typer? What about his jumping off the Daily Planet window? Anyway, the movie fails to admit that Clark and Superman ARE the same person, when the real interest of the story is the duality of Kal-El's identity.

Superman the Movie speaks to all generations.

Funny how freely you speak of that, since I belong to a generation where 80% remains indifferent to that movie (and the other 20% must some group I have still to meet, since there's nobody around my age who likes that movie). If the movie did speak to them, would that be their reaction?

It just doesn't speak to you.  And based on your knitpicking, I doubt a new one will will speak to you unless it fits into your narrowly defined parameters.

Uh-huh. Right. And I've taken shit like Lois & Clark because I was in love with the deep and meaningful dialogue? Pulease. Look, I don't care if they get Eminem and turn Clark Kent into a struggling rapper in the suburbs of Detroit, or if they make him a Cuban refugee who discovers his super-powers to fight against Kreplachistan -- as long as I see Superman flying in the skies of the world I live in (not the fifties, the seventies, or the eighties), I know it's gonna catch my breath. That's Superman's greatest power.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

This post was delete.

[Romão 2,274]

The main problem I have with the movie is Lex Luthor. Hackman is a great actor and he gave a good performance, but that was simply not the menacing Lex Luthor from the comics. I like the movie, and I also like the first batman, but I don't love them (although the Joker in Batman was much more faithful to the source that Luthor in terms of character).

Two-face, for example, is another great character trashed in a movie. They completly stripped him away of his tragedy which is the main reason why he is so appealing to me. It's a shame no batman movie has been about the Batmn yet.

Romão, who owns over 1000 Batman comics.

[Romão 2,274]

The Lex Luthor you are thinking of is the modern Luthor from the comics and the recent animated series.  He was not that way when Superman - The Movie was made.  Luthor didn't become a "respectable businessman" until John Byrne revamped the Superman storyline in 1986.

Neil

You may be right, Neil. I only started reading comics in 1992 more or less, so I guess my argument about Luthor is pretty hollow. My apologies. Anyway, this a movie I supose I would enjoy much more were I born in 1978 and already a comic book fan. At leats the movie provided one of the best scores ever and sure opened some doors. It is in no way unfaithful to the title character.

Romão, who thinks Reeve did a great job in the movie, unlike Kidder.

[Guest]

I wonder if Ross knows he's wrong but won't admit it. Man...movies like this one with Ross suck because they don't admit things that are FRICKIN' OBVIOUS TO BEGIN WITH! They suck because they make the audience use their brains to figure out what's going on. Why can't someone like George Lucas go burn all the reels of movies that are like that? CRAP! That's such an annoying problem!

Right Ross?

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Joe, wondering why Ross just had to get it out, had to vent?

Well, that freaking movie created an image of Superman that most teens dislike and regard as old-fashioned. Whenever I talk about the passion I feel for Superman, the character, I have to spend a long time explaining that's not the Superman I like.

When you talk about Superman as much as I do, it just grows and grows.

Also, it would be nice to state that I don't like a popular movie without being called a superficial moron who just goes to the movies to eat popcorn. I thought, perhaps, if I explained why I didn't like it, you people would at least understand but, wait, that requires you must be open-minded, so that's a no-go.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

I wonder if Ross knows he's wrong but won't admit it.  Man...movies like this one with Ross suck because they don't admit things that are FRICKIN' OBVIOUS TO BEGIN WITH!  They suck because they make the audience use their brains to figure out what's going on.  Why can't someone like George Lucas go burn all the reels of movies that are like that?  CRAP!  That's such an annoying problem!

Right Ross?

Yes, I suppose that if we don't agree, that makes me stupid.

-Ross, who at least got into Film School.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

-Ross, who at least got into Film School.

And does that make you feel more qualified them him or anyone of us to have a serious opinion about a film?

Films usually are not made for film students Ross, they are made for bums on seats like us.

Stefancos- who thinks Ross is arrogant and aproves of that very much.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Not really, Stefancos. I was just saying that if I was as stupid, shallow, and dumb as TLIJ says I am, I wouldn't have gotten where I am now. Which is exactly where I have wanting to be all my life (only different continent).

I respect the opinions I read here more than those my teachers try to indoctrinate to me every day. Because you are what movies are made for. I think that as long as I don't forget that, I'll be okay in the movie business.

But thanks for pointing that out. I would have hated it if you people thought of me superior just because some Film School accepted me. Sometimes, I find more to learn in here than in there.

-Ross, who would also REALLY HATE IT if some movie fanboy thought himself superior for having an specific opinion about a movie.

[Lurker 5]

I wonder if Ross knows he's wrong but won't admit it.

It's an opinion. He can't be wrong.

Neil

[Guest]

Wow...I didn't know that, Neil. What an eye-opener...

"Ted...I think you're being a little gullible here..."

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I have also had problems with Superman: The Movie. Gene Hackman was never able to sell Lex Luthor to me as the greatest evil genius on the planet. He's just some guy with a big ego and little patience.

Also, when you have someone like Superman, who is virtually invincible, the ONLY thing that he can't beat is time. We all know time goes by, and things change, whether we want them to or not. So this is Superman's only weakness (besides the Kryptonite of course). Then why THE HELL did he have to overcome that too?

And like Ross said, why is Clark Kent a nerd?

Anyway, I don't really like the movie, but I think the score is good. Even though it did disappoint me a bit, because I find it to be... well, just... loud, really. A bit over-bombastic. Perhaps that's due to the subject matter, but this score wasn't as able to grip as CE3K, which I bought at the same time, and had no expectations of, except to hear the finale.

- Marc, who hated that bit where Superman started about "The American Way". I just couldn't identify with that.

[A24 4,346]

When I saw Superman:The MovieI was a teenager too. Back then, I too noticed that when Clark Kent-teenager turned into Clark Kent-grownup the movie changed from the Smalville-like atmosphere to a more goofy, slapstick feel. Don't think that teenagers were more dumb in the Seventies and that we were easily satisfied. I surely felt the old school influenced approach that was surfacing throughout the second part. It was like Clark took a timemachine and went from the Fifties (or even Forties) to the Seventies. I remember the abrupt change in style very well but forgot about it during the next minutes that followed. The reason why didn't mind has probably to do with the fact that I was brought up (movie-wise) with the old classics. The only B&W movie teenagers today have seen is Schindler's List so I understand that alot of teens are not into"that" anymore. I'm sure there is or will be a generation that likes Attack Of The Clones more then A New Hope because the last mentioned is to old fashioned and only has about 12 spaceships in the final battle, hahaha. If you look at Lois and Clark today (reruns) you'll see it's already dated and Smallville (which is still running, I believe) is actually nothing more then Superboy: The Soap.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

I don't see why Ross shouldn't explain his dislike for the film. Seeing as though he has been oft disagreed with on the subject, I don't understand why anyone, particulary those people who have disagreed with him on the subject before, would dismiss his explanation as over-analysis.

Ray Barnsbury

[charlesk 0]

Oh, I can't believe I'm doing this... But after reading Ross' post, me, besides being of the generation that saw Superman as a teenager, I do agree with him.

The only thing I don't agree is that it was set in the fifties; no it wasn't, it was set in present time when I saw it. And Chris Reeve was well built on those day's standards for Superman. Now aesthetics have changed, but this is not a flaw.

About Clark Kent: He's an idiot. I never understood why he had to act differently. Superman is not a big chatter, but he is confident and intelligent. Why when being Clark Kent he had to be an idiot, I don't know. Superman is the only superhero with multiple personalities. Batman is the same person with or without mask, Spiderman is the same person, even Hulk is the same compasionate guy even when he transforms. The Clark Kent thing is only his private persona, there is no reason to make him a jerk.

About Lois Lane: Completely agree, not pretty, not even in the standars of that day. But judging by appearance would be unfair, so this doesn't matter as much as the fact that she was a lousy actress. About she being the super reporter they made of her in the series, well, I'm not sure if in the original concept she was so good at all. Maybe they made her an idiot to harmonize with the fact that she couldn't recognize a person when he wears glasses. But in any case, she was the most vane and boring character ever made.

About Luthor: I respect Gene Hackman. The approach at that time was more innocent. The evil, dark Luthor that is proud of his baldness came in the animated series later on. The Luthor of Lois & Clark is far more interesting, a charming person who is right and coherent in his own ambition, althought his plans push the limits of morals and ethics, and that makes him evil; believable evil.

But I call this difference between the old and new Luthor characters 'evolution'; both are right. What was wrong, is that Gene Hackman's Luthor wasn't threatening. If the opposing forces in a movie are not threatening, you have no emotional involvement from the audience in the story. An evil character can be made funny, but he always have to be threatening, you should be able to believe that he could kill the hero anytime. Not even when I saw the movie in theaters I believed he could.

The Finale: can't agree more. Bringing a 'go back in time' thing for a finale, is a modern way of Deus Ex Machina. I wished I could go back in time to forget the whole movie after seeying that. About the sequence when Superman is rescued by somebody else, you can use these in the movies, at the beginning, in the first or second acts, but never as the resolution of the third and last. The hero must overcome his enemy by the means of a change, and the change must come from inside (Ross, this is Robert McKee speaking ).

What I see in Ross' post is the demand of the youth for more deep, meaningful, real, smart superheroes, to serve as role models for a more demanding, hard, realistic times. Honestly, I need better superheros too. Thanks for your post, Ross.

[A24 4,346]

The Luthor of Lois & Clark is far more interesting, a charming person who is right and coherent in his own ambition, althought his plans push the limits of morals and ethics, and that makes him evil; believable evil.

But he is not memorable. Non of Lois and Clark crew are.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Hlao-roo 389]

In my arrogant opinion -- the only correct one that has ever existed and will ever exist, and don't you dare argue with me, you petulant airheads -- Superman: The Movie is a sub-par movie, but probably one of the better comic book movies, if not the best.

[charlesk 0]

The Luthor of Lois & Clark is far more interesting, a charming person who is right and coherent in his own ambition, althought his plans push the limits of morals and ethics, and that makes him evil; believable evil.

But he is not memorable. Non of Lois and Clark crew are.

----------------

Alex Cremers

I wasn't talking about the actor, I was talking about the character. A Luthor in the style of the one in Lois & Clark played in a movie by a Hackman, Nicholson, Liam Neeson, Patrick Stewart would be memorable, especially if it is granted a backstory, a good arc development and well thought dialogue (things that are absent in both the series and the movie).

[JoeinAR 1,949]

this post was deleted.

[Ollie 1,059]

So just because Superman is set in the 70's that means films like Psycho, Citizen Cane, It's A Wonderful Life, King Kong(1933), Goldfinger, North By Northwest, Ben Hur etc etc are not deemed worthy either because they take place in the past????

That's a pretty sad statement to make. I hate to tell you this but most of the great films were made during the 50's 60's and 70's.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

This post was deleted.

[Ollie 1,059]

Sorry Joe.

That's my main problem with the younger generation, (Yeah I'm so old at 35) they are so quick to praise every score or film made after 1990 as the best ever, but yet how many of them have actually watched even half of the films I've listed or listened to a compser other than Williams, Goldsmith, Arnold or Zimmer.

Now this isn't a personal attack against Ender but an observation of what I hear or see around me, not only on the message boards but in public. That comment about the film being made in the 70's kinda set me off because it makes no sense.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

So just because Superman is set in the 70's that means films like Psycho, Citizen Cane, It's A Wonderful Life, King Kong(1933), Goldfinger, North By Northwest, Ben Hur etc etc are not deemed worthy either because they take place in the past????  

That's a pretty sad statement to make. I hate to tell you this but most of the great films were made during the 50's 60's and 70's.

No Mark, you didn't understand. The greatest movies were made some 50 years ago, that's true. But they don't need to be remade. Jesus, how can you remake Bogart?

Superman is a different story. It's a good movie, but there is no such thing as a universal Superman movie that applies to every generation. Because every generation has different tastes and styles. Different problems. Different lifestyle.

The whole point of the Superman is to feel him close, to feel him here and now. Helping us cope with our problems with his enthralling super-powers. Not to see him save somebody in 70's, that has different problems and looks so different from us?

Take Psycho for instance. That shower scene can't be improved and needs not to be remade. Because a murder is a murder in any time. A human life is a human life no matter when it took place. The Holocuast still haunts us even 60 years later. But those are stories told to the audience, unviersally, in general.

Superman is a story told to YOU. Supes smiling to the camera at the end is a good proof that. Now this movie keeps telling the story to YOU, the generation who saw it in the theater. We need somebody to tell the story to US now. You have your movie, you were that lucky. Now can we have ours? Superman can't die in a certain decade. He needs to live forever, thoroughout the ages.

I'm sure there were also people protesting at WB for making that wonderful Batman cartoon show some years ago, just to protect the 60's series with Adam West.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Mark, just because a movie is dated doesn't mean it's bad. Stories belong a certain time and place (can anyone see Philip Marlowe outside the 40's?). Myths don't.

I agree with you. Most of the movies from the 90's are pure crap. If XXX is the James Bond of the 00's, then God assist us. But that we want a Superman movie of our own doesn't mean we systematically reject everything that was made 30 years ago -- we all prefer the original Star Wars to Attack of the Clones! Citizen Kane is the best movie of all time, and it was made a long time ago!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But that we want a Superman movie of our own doesn't mean we systematically reject everything that was made 30 years ago

Please talk for yourself instead of trying to be the voice of your/our generation.

Personally i see no real need for a new film version of Superman, Lois and Clark and Smallville have kinda made such a movie redundant anyway.

Also XXX is not James Bond for the new century, James Bond is the new James Bond for the new century.

Stefancos- who enjoyed XXX, for the mindless popcorn film that it is.

[A24 4,346]

I wouldn't mind to see a new movie about Superman as long it's far away from Lois and Clark, Smallville, Spiderman, etc. I think making a good Superman movie is a very hard thing to do. Give the project to David Lynch, make it dark and strange, and then maybe it will stand a chance. I'm not kidding.

---------------

Alex Cremers

[Guest]

I want to make a new Superman, but not in the same vein as L&C or Smallville. If anything, it's going to resemble Donner's vision. All my films will be like that. Realistic love stories that involve time and chemistry. Movies should have graceful pacing, rather than lightspeed or turtle-slow.

[charlesk 0]

I would do a Superman movie following Superman as a kid, when he discovers his superpowers, when he's seen as a freak at school, when father and mother reveal he is not only adopted but also from outer space, probably Superman in his teens has an ego boost and overuses his superpowers, then he learns humility. He maybe accidentally killed of almost killed somebody because his powers were out of control at a fight at school with a bully, things like that. Who exactly is Superman, how he handles being different (the not so charming part of it).

[JoeinAR 1,949]

This post was deleted.

[BigKenLittle 6]

I would do a Superman movie following Superman as a kid, when he discovers his superpowers, when he's seen as a freak at school, when father and mother reveal he is not only adopted but also from outer space, probably Superman in his teens has an ego boost and overuses his superpowers, then he learns humility. He maybe accidentally killed of almost killed somebody because his powers were out of control at a fight at school with a bully, things like that. Who exactly is Superman, how he handles being different (the not so charming part of it).

Ummm, isn't that exactly the premise of Smallville??? :roll:

[Elmo Lewis 6]

well the brains in charge today that will give Ross his Superman for 21st Century Patience Challenged Generation directed by Brett Ratner or McG(who the .... is he, Charlies Angel Super director, ha)

starring Ashton Kutcher.  

I think we call all agree that Kutcher would give a much greater performance than Reeve did.  Maybe it will be Josh(I got her pregnant at Pearl Harbor)Hartnett.  He too will make Reeve's performance look like crap.  In our pc world lets have someone like Jada Pinkett Smith as Lois Lane.  Richard Chamberlain as Perry White.  Arnold Swarznegger as Jor-El.

Such stupid words only show how little have you understood of what I have written so far. Sorry, I cannot be any clearer, you'll need to add something by yourself. Have you tried to actually READ my posts?

[UCFKevin 0]

I think.......I HOPE he was kidding.

Kutcher better than Reeve.

Jada Pinkett as Lois.

Arnold as JoEl.

That HAS to be a joke.

STM is one of the greatest movies of all time in my opinion. It's so brilliantly well done and beautiful looking and sounding, it's all completely top notch as far as I'm concerned.

Then again, I'm a little biased, as I grew up on the movie, seen it over a hundred times, and it's my favorite movie of all time.

Nothing can EVER top STM. Nothing. I'm not just talking about a new Superman movie. No comic book movie will ever treat the material as well as it did, seriously but with a wink as well.

[Justin 2]

Not to point fingers but Joe it sure seems like you are personally insulted by Ross's opinion, not to be a wet blanket or anything but...

...it's just a movie.

Justin -Who enjoys Superman very much.

[King Mark 3,631]

seeing this movie as a kid I remember some parts were fairly boring in the cinema,like the bad guy trial,the trip to earth and the fortress of solitudes part(which sort of drag on in the same way as the Vger cloud sequences on Star Trek,TMP).And Lex Luther didn't seem too menacing compared to the animated series Superfriends.I think they overplayed the comedic villain angle with Luthor and Otis,they reminded me of Dr.Smith and the Robot from Lost in Space.

K.M.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Lay off, Justin. Joe is perfectly welcome to deride a wrong opinion. I'm surprised IndySolo hasn't removed Ender's post; we don't want this place to be known for disseminating erroneous information.

It's even worse that Ender actually tries to defend his wrong opinion. Shame on him. We all know that, around here, the way to go is to make pat, forceful statements that can stand on their own. It proves that Ender is incapable of saying anything without buttressing them with reasons, just like a coward.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

You could be right, Alan. I would never defend an opinion once I have stated it. But what really gets my nerves is that Joe doesn't seem to really read my posts, rather than just reading what he wants to read and then making "sarcastical" comments I take offence at. And I don't take offence easily.

You mention some of my information as erroneous. But I look back and only see my opinion all over the place. Are you sure you chose the correct word?

[Yoda Longbottom 0]

It could be Hlao-roo was being sarcastic. It's difficult to tell with sureness, but the best sarcastic posts work marvels only when you doubt their sarcasm as highly unlikely this time around. Hlao-roo never or rarely uses smileys. They'd ruin it all.

Ender, you're entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else here, though it may not seem blatantly obvious all day long. The worst you can end up is being banned. But it would be the most telling respond to your differing attitude. May it never come that far.

[Justin 2]

When is Hlao-roo NOT sarcastic?

I'm surprised IndySolo hasn't removed Ender's post; we don't want this place to be known for disseminating erroneous information.  

Neil is on my side thank you very much.

Justin -Who thinks Alan has a wrong opinion about Ross's supposedly wrong opinion.

[Hlao-roo 389]

All right, all right...before we get carried away -- yes, that was sarcasm intended to make a point (my first post in this topic was also sarcastic, but it was more a silly jest than anything else). It was indeed a point Neil had made, although it was somewhat blunted by his earlier ridiculing of Ender's original post. That we should respect, both inwardly and outwardly, each person's opinion -- and the opinions he uses to back up his opinion -- is both common sense and an explicit stricture drawn up by Ricard in an attempt to impart some civility upon this forum.

As much as I love all the veterans here, I think some of them here have been frustratingly dismissive of Ender's opinion. I'm just appealing to them to be less close-minded and more receptive. Sure, much of Ender's post may provoke debate -- and, for the livelihood of this board, let's hope the debate is as spirited as it can be -- but may it truly be a debate, or discussion, and not thinly veiled insults. Obviously, this goes for both sides.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Although i'm usually the first to dismiss Ross, or his opinions, i must say Alan has a good point.

Stefancos- who probably won't stop dismiising Ender's opinions and riducule them, though.