Jump to content

Rewatching Superman Returns - Hollywood turned it into a masterpiece


gkgyver
 Share

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, gkgyver said:

The excuse that „time changes“ is bullshit, it doesn’t change on its own, it changes because Hollywood makes it change.

Well, yes and no.  The general popular mood in 2006 was already a bit depressed and Superman Returns did not really cheer people up.  There was a reason so many gravitated towards the ambiguous, often shapeless angst of the Nolan Batmans.  And then the Recession hit, and pretty much every form of escapism had to have a "serious" element so that people felt their escapism was not quite as empty as it actually was.

Plenty of folks like you were and are unimpressed.  But the majority speaks and Hollywood speaks that language too.

 

SR and MoS are both rather lackluster to me, for what it is worth.  

 

And Christopher Reeve and John Williams managed to capture the essence and promise of Superman even more than those 70s and 80s movies themselves did.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a movie that definitely appealed to me when I saw it in theaters as a little kid. But as I got older, and saw a lot of the criticism thrown at it, it's a film I only really have a slight nostalgic connection to at this point. The music is definitely the one thing I keep taking from it, as I find it incredibly appealing in spite of technically not being anything special (though I prefer X2 at this point). Otherwise, not a lot of incentive to revisit this one, besides if I ever do another Reeves marathon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SteveMc said:

Well, yes and no.  The general popular mood in 2006 was already a bit depressed and Superman Returns did not really cheer people up.  There was a reason so many gravitated towards the ambiguous, often shapeless angst of the Nolan Batmans.  And then the Recession hit, and pretty much every form of escapism had to have a "serious" element so that people felt their escapism was not quite as empty as it actually was.

Plenty of folks like you were and are unimpressed.  But the majority speaks and Hollywood speaks that language too.

 

I'm as baffled by the "realistic/relatable/dark/disturbing" era now as I was back then. I mean, it doesn't fit the preceding pattern in cultural zeitgeists and Hollywood's response to it. For example, following WW2, instead of getting a slew of depressing Holocaust films, the gradiose Hollywood musical emerged as the dominant genre on the production line. Following America's post-Vietnam trauma, people responded well to buoyant and optimistic blockbusters like Star Wars and Superman, and the demand for more fantasy-based cinema followed, and thus the modern geek-culture was born. Bleak New Wave 70s cinema died.

 

But in the 2000s? What the hell happened? What was it about that time when when people were like "yeh nah, I want me movies to be as miserable as I am"? This was obviously a GenX/millennial thing, so there's something off about that mob that's mismatched with how previous generations think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what Steve is going on about with The Recession and such. It had nothing to do with anything. Post-9/11 entertainment tended to be dark and disturbing, and crappy. Gen X ruined everything. Now, they're the ones in charge of everything and everything sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, more fantastical cinema was revived in the post-recession 2010s when Marvel emerged as the dominant genre and became a template for other film companies to emulate. Nolan and Snyder became more of a niche thing, crying out for attention to their bleak and oppressive nightmare movies, while the rest of the world clawed the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never thought I'd say this, but I reckon Godzilla vs Kong will have an overall warmer reception than Batman v Superman had. Although it won't make as much money (pandemic and shit), it'll be more widely-liked than Snyder's misfire. And much of that comes down to the fact that it isn't anywhere near as confusing plot-wise, is more optimistic, and Kong has a level of charisma and pathos in the movie that neither Bats or Supes could conjure in their own mash-up. GvK is so retarded, it's almost brilliant in its approach and formula to appeal to the masses, particularly in foreign markets. This is just a taste of what we're in for in the 2020s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy. I can't wait to tell the others.

 

Thanks for the feedback everyone, good to hear that we're getting the credit for ruining modern cinema. Our plan for world domination is nearly complete. MWUAHAHAHAHA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Big Man said:

 

I'm as baffled by the "realistic/relatable/dark/disturbing" era now as I was back then. I mean, it doesn't fit the preceding pattern in cultural zeitgeists and Hollywood's response to it. For example, following WW2, instead of getting a slew of depressing Holocaust films, the gradiose Hollywood musical emerged as the dominant genre on the production line. Following America's post-Vietnam trauma, people responded well to buoyant and optimistic blockbusters like Star Wars and Superman, and the demand for more fantasy-based cinema followed, and thus the modern geek-culture was born. Bleak New Wave 70s cinema died.

 

But in the 2000s? What the hell happened? What was it about that time when when people were like "yeh nah, I want me movies to be as miserable as I am"? This was obviously a GenX/millennial thing, so there's something off about that mob that's mismatched with how previous generations think.

 


Because people see heroism in their misery and self inflicted trauma, which they think is worthwhile teaching others.

They are miserable, but it’s not gravely affecting their lives. They can lament their misery from a position of basic comfort.

They don’t need a counterprogram because 1) it’s not so bad for them, and 2) many can‘t take happy people.

This current generation grew up on instant satisfaction, so when it gets a bit more complicated and requires more persistance, they easily give up and therefore easily become miserable. So for this generation, the hero fantasy is either someone who succeeds instantly at everything (s)he does (Mary Sue), or someone who shares their misery and can’t ever be not plagued by sorrow.


Thats also why there is so much fake drama in these movies, this generation in the age of digital communication has never properly learned to interact with and understand people.

 

If you’re a war generation, you’re practically pushed towards escapism. But these people don’t look for escapism, but for identification, because they feel nobody understands them, because people become socially incompatible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw SUPERMAN RETURNS at the cinema. I liked it. I saw it, again, at the cinema, a few months later - in IMAX 3-D, this time.

I liked it more.

When the title music started up, I cheered. When I saw JW's credit, I'll admit that tears were shed. Who'd ever have thought that we'd ever hear that theme, at the cinema, again?

It's not a perfect film, by any standards, but it's fun, and, yes, uplifting.

I'd take SUPERMAN RETURNS over any amount of current MCU/DCU gobshite.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

When I saw JW's credit, I'll admit that tears were shed. 

 

I'd swear it's the briefest visible credit of any JW credit ever, it was disgraceful how quickly that thing darted by, probably the result of John Ottman slipping the credits designer a shady back-hander. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think Superman Returns was that great to start with, and I don't think its aged particularly well. It's different enough from Superman I & II to not quite feel like the sequel it wants to be, but obviously has no connection to the Snyder films, making it somewhat of an orphan, and an unwanted one at that.

 

That said, I understand your general sentiment, i.e. more recent entries in a franchise can make you appreciate older ones more.  For example, I used to think Star Trek Voyager was pretty awful, but Discovery and Picard has caused me to reappraise it, and I've quite warmed up to it now.  It's not that its gotten better over time, I just appreciate it for what it is now when compared to the new series and regard it as a kind of Trek comfort food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

For a bunch that all claim to hate modern cinema, you’re all miserable fucks. 


 

I wear that badge with honor!

 

And stay off my lawn!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, part of the dissapointment was that for Superman Returns Singer refused to direct X-Men The Last Stand. But meanwhile we see with Singer's X-Men prequels that he is as well able to make bad X-Men movie's, so we can take that blame from Superman Returns and enjoy it better. Anyway, I didn't like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who never saw Superman Returns, it appears that Superman and Lois FUCKED in the two previous movies (no news there). So even if Superman turned the word around twice (very original ending for a Superman movie), his semen CAN'T BE erased, you know, it's SUPER SPERM after all!!!

 

So in Superman Returns, Superman discover he have a son. End of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

I think, part of the dissapointment was that for Superman Returns Singer refused to direct X-Men The Last Stand. But meanwhile we see with Singer's X-Men prequels that he is as well able to make bad X-Men movie's, so we can take that blame from Superman Returns and enjoy it better. Anyway, I didn't like it.


He only made two prequels and DoFP is one of the better superhero films 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked this when it came out (I don't think I'd seen the original back then) and it was harmless fun. I still think it is - I never really got all the hate surrounding it.

 

I don't subscribe to the idea of retrospectively disliking a movie because an actor/director has done bad stuff. Won't go further into that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s not as bad as it’s reputation. Me, I like all the actors, and the movie has heart as pointed out, but the best thing is absolutely Superman flying to JW’s music.

 

That is always going to be stunning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just feel SR is lame and tepid. Routh looks the part but never seems comfortable. Bosworth is icy, aloof and humourless - the Lois character has never been more low-energy than she is here. Spacey is okay-ish, I guess. Posey is sidelined and wasted.

 

I'd rather watch Supergirl. It's schlock that revels in the silliness of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Big Man said:

Routh looks the part but never seems comfortable.

Yes.  He comes off as intimidated by the role and the shoes he had to fill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Big Man said:

I just feel SR is lame and tepid. Routh looks the part but never seems comfortable. Bosworth is icy, aloof and humourless - the Lois character has never been more low-energy than she is here. Spacey is okay-ish, I guess. Posey is sidelined and wasted.

 

I'd rather watch Supergirl. It's schlock that revels in the silliness of it all.

 

All of this. Totally agree. This movie will never be a "masterpiece" no matter how many brooding DC films exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides being a sex criminal and a creep, Singer was also a hugely overrated director. 

 

Returns is not good enough to be memorable nor bad enough to be entertaining. It's just a mediocre and utterly tedious flick that you forget after you watch it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Singer ever even considered particularly reputable to the general public? Besides Usual Suspects and 2-3 X-Men films, he seemed to have just been one of Hollywood's go to studio guys to direct whatever random project they had lying around. This probably is more retroactive assessment from others that's clouding my perception, but I am curious to hear what others think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably people will crucify me here for saying that, nur except for the original soundtrack of the first film the Superman movies didn't age well. And since Singer kind of kicked off the new generation of marvel superhero movies like they are produced today with X-Men and X-Men 2, made with Superman Returns a superhero movie in the style that many had hoped to have overcome. 

It would be like today someone would make another Batman movie in the overexited Joel Schumaker style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.