PDA

View Full Version : 75 Years of Superman


Turo602
10-15-2013, 02:50 PM
So this was shown at NYCC and has just been posted today on the web in celebration of Superman's 75th anniversary.

ebXB0lBoaQ0

How do you guys feel about the short? Was it a good tribute? Did it fail to capture all of the blue boyscout's high points in his 75 year history? Also, what are some of your favorite memories of Superman?

Personally, I've been a huge Superman fan since I was just a kid; catching whatever I can of the Christopher Reeve films on T.V. when it was on. I was also really into Superman: The Animated Series, which I don't quite remember too well, since it did come out a year after I was born. So it was really vague in my mind for some time, until I was able to watch the series beginning to end when it released on DVD. I still remember some of the action figures I used to have from the series.

As for more recent things Superman, I started watching Smallville around the end of season 5. I watched it every week since then, and it's still hard to believe that it ended over two years ago. I've also kept up with all the animated movie releases which have also been very good. My personal favorite being, All-Star Superman. I'm also quite fond of the latest Man of Steel movie, despite all the crap it has been getting from fans and critics. I know it wasn't a perfect movie, but honestly, I'd say it's the best Superman movie to date.

snake
10-15-2013, 02:54 PM
I liked the short and Man of Steel. I never understood all the hate for it.

TurtleTitan97
10-15-2013, 02:56 PM
I thought it was awesome. My congrats to Bruce Timm and Scott Snyder for making this.:tgrin:

I guess my favorite Superman memories would be watching Superman The Animated Series. IMO, it's the best Superman cartoon to date. Though I hope someday Superman will get another solo cartoon instead of DC continually pumping out more Batman stuff.

ZariusTwo
10-15-2013, 02:58 PM
I'm also quite fond of the latest Man of Steel movie, despite all the crap it has been getting from fans and critics. I know it wasn't a perfect movie, but honestly, I'd say it's the best Superman movie to date.

I don't think people who say it was a good movie even buy that themselves, and that they're just settling. All-Star Superman's animated adaptation and several episodes of Superman: TAS were light years ahead of that film.

RaphAndDonnie
10-15-2013, 03:07 PM
I like this short. Its a nice llittle tribute to Superman. I really don't have any fond memories of anything Superman related, as I've only become "aware" of the superhero genre within the last year though I have enjoyed the Fleischer's cartoon, TAS and the first movie.

Turo602
10-15-2013, 03:18 PM
I don't think people who say it was a good movie even buy that themselves, and that they're just settling. All-Star Superman's animated adaptation and several episodes of Superman: TAS were light years ahead of that film.

Settling is exactly what makes anything "the best." We'll always be settling on what we have until we see more. So what's your point? You hate Man of Steel, therefore no one can legitimately like it?

Leo656
10-15-2013, 10:18 PM
Not gonna lie, I got a little choked up watching that. It's a really nice piece of work, for what it is. It could have been longer but honestly it could be a solid 30 minutes and I'd want more. Great stuff.

I've been a huge Superman fan all my life, literally as far back as I can remember. I learned to read through Superman comics and watched the movies and George Reeves show religiously. To this day the only Superman-related product I haven't really liked is Smallville. His character (and that of many others) was just portrayed so wrong, and they excused it all with "Hey, it's early in the mythology", which I don't buy into. I'unno.

I liked "Man of Steel" but I can agree with a lot of the criticism. It was a nice big action movie and it hit all the right beats for that kind of movie, but part of what makes Superman "different" is the heart, and the movie really lacked that. Between the tone and visuals of "Superman Returns" and the action of "Man of Steel", you'd have the perfect Superman movie. Neither movie "nailed it" 100%, but I'd argue "Returns", while slow in spots, *felt* more like Superman.

I WAS hoping the sequel would be a bit lighter and less dreary, and that the tone would be more of the traditional, "Triumphant" Superman feeling, but WB chickened out since MOS "only" made $700 million, so the sequel is gonna be all about Superman getting smacked around by Batman, so my expectations are considerably lower. It should still be a good movie, overall, but I don't think we'll get another "real" Superman movie until the inevitable next reboot in about 10-15 years. That's a shame; I wish we'd get a hand-drawn cartoon show in the interim.

EDIT: Here's a good scene-by-scene breakdown of the short and the historical significance of each shot. A must-read (even though longtime fans should already know a lot of this stuff!): http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2013/10/15/the-superman-anniversary-short-75-points-of-annotation

Krutch
10-17-2013, 12:35 AM
Loved it, but... No Lois & Clark? No Superman Returns? Just a Smallville sign? Kinda disappointing.

Whatswiththeheadbands?
10-17-2013, 04:06 AM
I liked the short and Man of Steel. I never understood all the hate for it.

It's because people can't just move on from the past.

Leo656
10-17-2013, 04:49 AM
That's completely, entirely over-simplifying it. It doesn't deserve ALL the flack it gets but there IS in fact quite a bit wrong with the movie. People who point that out are, in many cases, simply being objective.

Whatswiththeheadbands?
10-17-2013, 04:57 AM
That's completely, entirely over-simplifying it. It doesn't deserve ALL the flack it gets but there IS in fact quite a bit wrong with the movie. People who point that out are, in many cases, simply being objective.

Not arguing here, but most of the complaints people have with this film that I've seen is it's too different from the Christopher reeve films.

Leo656
10-17-2013, 06:16 AM
Regardless of that, nothing can change the fact that the very point of Superman is to help make the world a better place, and by the end of "Man Of Steel" it's certain that the world portrayed in the film would have been much better off had he and his "pals" never shown up at all. I don't care how much they promise the aftermath will be dealt with in sequels, it severely undercuts the spirit of THIS movie.

That's the fatal flaw of that and any other film proclaiming to feature Superman, is you cannot have him be the bad guy, and in this movie every bad thing happens directly because of him and his actions. Even him "saving" Metropolis killed millions of people in minutes. "Year One" this and "Inexperienced" that, I get what they were trying to portray, but they went overboard. WAY more than any comparison to the Reeve films, the thing that most hurts MoS is simply that Superman decidedly leaves everything WORSE than when he found it, and that's a big part of what hurt it for me.

I do like the movie, it's very good and visually it's amazing, but it needed some restraint. And much, much better dialog. And just a tiny bit of humor wouldn't have hurt anything, either. It looked like a Superman movie should look but in a lot of ways it just didn't feel like a Superman movie should feel.

Turo602
10-17-2013, 07:36 AM
It's because people can't just move on from the past.

Even though this is simplifying it, it's true for most critics. From some of the reviews I've seen, a lot of the complaints come from how it's not the Superman they used to know. It's sad to see this movie shunned so hard due to the character's popularity. Come on, one of Man of Steel's faults, according to one review, was that they messed up the meaning of the "S" and that it's supposed to mean "Superman." It's obvious a lot of these critics aren't real fans, since they're just going off of what they know based on the Christopher Reeve films (I know "S" doesn't mean "Superman" in the Reeve films, just an example of the guy's ignorance). So generally, everyone thinks Superman is this one-dimensional good guy who can do no wrong. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the Superman that was portrayed in Man of Steel. It was a good take and nothing that hasn't been done before.

CyberCubed
10-17-2013, 03:05 PM
Did they reference Lois and Clark or Smallville there? Or even Superman Returns from 2006?

I think those 3 got left out.

Leo656
10-17-2013, 07:17 PM
They showed the Smallville water tower, but that was it. Honestly, that's as close to being about Superman as that show ever got, anyway.

"Lois and Clark" and "Returns" could have been squeezed in at the expense of, say, the Andy Warhol reference or the Muhammed Ali fight, but eh, you can't have everything in two minutes. I mean even Luthor and Lois only had brief cameos.

Krutch
10-28-2013, 04:26 PM
My buddy asked me a few weeks ago what my favourite superhero movie was of all time, and then asked if it was Superman Returns. I was quick to go, "Oh, no. God, no. Compared to Dark Knight, Batman Begins, X2, Turtles... not a chance." But it kept lingering in my mind and popping up every now and again. And yeah.. I think I'm gonna finally say it... I'm pretty damn certain Superman Returns is my favourite superhero movie of all time. And I remember leaving theatres a bit disappointed. But based on sheer fascination, and how many times I've watched it(tooooons more than any other, even Turtles 1).. I don't know. There's a uniqueness to it. Theres a very different perspective being told with very risky additions to the mythos, like them or not.

Leo656
10-28-2013, 07:55 PM
I hear ya, man. The only two things "wrong" with "Superman Returns" at all are 1. It's a bit slow and talky in parts, and 2. The addition of the kid was totally unnecessary and so controversial that all by itself, it made people not like the movie. That's despite the number one complaint about super-hero stories (and Superman stories specifically) usually being, "Nothing ever changes, the story never moves forward". This was a perfect example of WHY it's like that - because when storytellers TRY to do anything different, fans sh*t on it. "That's not how it goes! Superman doesn't have a kid!" It would have been resolved in a sequel, for sure, but just enough people bitched just loud enough for them to scrap the next two movies they planned.

It also didn't help that the sh*t-storm that was X-Men 3 came out three weeks earlier, and it was one long fight scene, mostly, and all my friends who liked that awful, awful movie more than SR all had the same complaint: "No fight scenes!" F*ck that noise, man. It wasn't that kind of movie and didn't need to be. It was all about emotionally manipulating the audience, and to me, it worked great. By contrast, MoS often failed to make me feel the appropriate emotions in any given scene, usually because of the lousy dialog.

SR is a great movie, man. History will vindicate it. The visuals, music, and some of the action scenes are by far the best of the Superman series, even including MoS. It's not perfect, but again, like the Star Wars prequels, a LOT of people really liked it until the internet told them not to.

CyberCubed
10-28-2013, 07:57 PM
Superman Returns had a terrible Lois. Considering this was supposed to be a sequel to Superman II, how on earth they picked the actress they did to play Lois...who doesn't resemble the original one at all is beyond me.

Jester
10-28-2013, 08:04 PM
Um...Leo...what about Kryptonite in SR?

*scurries away*

Leo656
10-28-2013, 08:19 PM
CC: I'll agree, actually. At the time I didn't mind her but Bosworth was pretty bad as Lois and I think that's something else that hurt the movie. In both looks and personality, Lois has to be absolutely dynamite, because she's the one girl "American Jesus" falls for above all others on Earth. The guy who used to run Superman Homepage wrote a lengthy review when the film came out, pointing out that "Lois" in SR was really just Lana from "Smallville", a completely unlikable bitch who everyone was in love with for no good reason because she treated everyone around her like sh*t. Superman saves her from dying in a f*cking plane crash, and she's all, "F*CK YOU!" There was nothing likable about her at all, and I think that was a big flaw, too.

Bryan Singer only cast her because he had some kind of weird "thing" for her despite the fact that he's gay. Like, that she was a "classic beauty" in the style of Audrey Hepburn, was what it was. They never auditioned anyone else, she was his only choice, and that was that. WB was letting him do whatever he wanted at that point, since the two X-Men movies made huge bank. In retrospect, almost anyone would have been better. It didn't bother me that she didn't look like Margot Kidder -frankly, Kidder was never attractive enough to be Lois, IMO, shallow as that is that's just me being honest, I never liked Kidder as Lois at all - what bothered me is she's a wooden actress and her character was so bitchy.

As for Kryptonite, Jester, it's never portrayed consistently anyway in any medium, so I can forgive a lot for the sake of drama. Sometimes just being near it robs him of his powers for a time, often it's lethal, other times it just makes him really weak - it's always different depending on who's telling the story. In this case, the fact he absorbed a massive charge of solar rays right before he lifted the Kryptonite Asteroid into space was no accident, they entirely intended it to run that way, which is why they reminded the audience earlier that he gets his power from the sun. Plus, it DID take almost everything he had and almost killed him. And at the end of the day, it's a f*cking movie, and do we really need the amazing visual of him carrying a small continent into space and then crashing to Earth half-dead to be ruined by nitpicking? It LOOKED great, and that was the point. :lol:

The Season 1 finale of "Lois & Clark" had Lex trap Superman in a Kryptonite cage for a ridiculously long period of time, when earlier in the season just being close to it took his powers away for several days. Go yell at THEM about being consistent, that's a much more egregious offense. :P

Ultimately, it's since come out from several reputable sources that Singer was WAY high on crystal meth while making the movie, and that had a lot to do with some things being done that maybe shouldn't have been done. Particularly the editing of the film; many people have said it's cut poorly and some scenes jump too abruptly. During the post-production, Singer was out at the gay clubs until 4 or 5 a.m. almost every night, getting drunk and high on meth, and was totally wiped out during the editing sessions. So the lesson here is, Stay Sober, boys and girls.

Jester
10-28-2013, 08:40 PM
To be fair, it has been awhile since I watched Superman Returns. Might ought to rewatch the series period.

Leo656
10-28-2013, 08:44 PM
If you even attempt to watch 3 and 4, I won't be held responsible for your suicide.

Just skip to the junkyard scene in part 3 and then turn the movie off as soon as he rips open his shirt to show he's a good guy again. That ten minutes is among the best things in any Superman movie, but it's literally the only sh*t worth watching in 3 and 4.

Unless you REALLY have the hots for Annette O'Toole and Mariel Hemingway, as I do. Annette's rack should have gotten its own cast credit for part 3. :lol:

Jester
10-28-2013, 08:47 PM
I've watched 3 and Quest For Peace before...actually like 4 better than 3 personally. As cheesy as he is, I really like Nuclear Man.

Leo656
10-28-2013, 09:12 PM
I like Nuclear Man but the movie itself is so, SO badly made I can't stomach it. It looks like it was made for $50 with stuff from the local crafts store. He TALKS in space. He FLIES in space with Mariel Hemingway and her head doesn't explode. It's a f*cking abomination on every level. I just can't take it. It's the main reason there was a 20-year gap between Superman movies. If someone made it as a parody, MAYBE, but it was supposed to be the relaunch of the franchise and a huge blockbuster. I... oh, God, I just can't f*cking stand that movie anymore. It's a step-by-step instructional video on how NOT to make movies.

The fact that Golan and Globus (the producers) both were all like, "We still don't know why it didn't work, we thought it was good!" means they were probably sent to Earth by Satan to undermine all the goodwill Superman had ever created. It's the only, ONLY logical explanation. F*ck that movie.

Slade
10-28-2013, 09:18 PM
I watched that short about 5 or 6 times after my first initial viewing. I need to find some way to save the video to my phone. I think it's amazing. Could be longer as mentioned and even though I'm no a huge fan of Returns, it does need a reference to that and Loos and Clark. Won't get into everyone's dislikes of different movies and such since I find it pointless at times. It's all about opinions. I happen to hold Man of Steel higher than the rest of the Superman films, some don't and that's fine.

Leo656
10-28-2013, 09:29 PM
I don't think anyone calling Superman IV dog sh*t is an opinion, frankly. :lol: That movie can only be enjoyed ironically, and even then, the person enjoying it should be ashamed of themselves. :lol:

MoS is a really good action movie, but I can't in good conscience rate it highest, just because some parts were way off the mark and the tone was all wrong. There are people who say it's great and people who say it's awful, and I can't really agree with either. But it's very good, overall. :)

I was giving it some thought, though, and out of the dozens of comic book movies I've seen, I honestly, truly, think every single one of them was better than Superman IV. Even the 1989 straight-to-video Captain America. Even Dolph Lundren's "Punisher" movie. Even Fantastic F*cking Four, if you can believe that. I can't think of one movie that makes me as sick and angry as Superman IV. Maybe Spawn, but that might just be my anti-Spawn bias, it almost HAS to be better than SIV. :P

Krutch
10-28-2013, 09:29 PM
and 2. The addition of the kid was totally unnecessary

This, again, was a major contribution to my initial feeling of disappointment about the film. But the more I thought about it, and considering the main themes of isolation and being an outsider being so prominent in the film, I can completely understand why Singer added the character. Think about it. Superman has been gone for 5 years, completely alone, and has just returned to see that the world has gone along pretty damn good without him. His mother seems to be moving on and dating again(albeit in a deleted scene.) The woman he loves is engaged to a great guy, and even has a kid with him (at least from his perspective.) Lois is now a Pulitzer prize winning journalist for a piece called Why The World Doesn't Need Superman. It really does make him feel even more alone and emphasized the outsider perspective and continues the "son becomes the father" thing they've had going on since Superman 1. Jason is that missing link to humanity that Superman's been looking for. Which is why the ending is so beautifully bittersweet; Superman and Lois still aren't together, but he flies away with feeling more connected than ever. I love it.

I think its universally agreed Bosworth as Lois was just straight up miscast. Though I'm pretty sure it was Kevin Spacey that had a thing for Kate, having worked with her on Beyond the Sea. Singer even stated that it was Spacey's recommendation that brought her in to audition before they started auditions, and he gave her the part.

In any case, I can see Singer wanted a more down to earth kind of Lois, seeing as how she's a mommy now. And I really did like Bosworth's performance, though. Its just unfortunate that she was playing Lois Lane and not some other character, because she does have some really nice moments, particularly the rooftop scene with Superman. But yeah, definitely didn't ring "Lois" to me. Especially when Erica Durance was doing such a phenomenal job of it on Smallville at the same time. Ah well.

Ultimately, it's since come out from several reputable sources that Singer was WAY high on crystal meth while making the movie, and that had a lot to do with some things being done that maybe shouldn't have been done. Particularly the editing of the film; many people have said it's cut poorly and some scenes jump too abruptly. During the post-production, Singer was out at the gay clubs until 4 or 5 a.m. almost every night, getting drunk and high on meth, and was totally wiped out during the editing sessions. So the lesson here is, Stay Sober, boys and girls.

Interesting. What are your sources from this? My google-fu couldn't find anything. And I've worked with alot of people I trust whom have worked very closely with Bryan, and they all seem to have the same general opinion of him: He's a workaholic who takes things a bit too seriously at times but never at the expense of the movie he's working on.

From what you're saying, I can't help but feel its just fabricated bullsh*t from people who hated Superman Returns and wanted to take shots at Bryan in the easiest, most unclever way.

Leo656
10-28-2013, 09:42 PM
Well, I don't have names, obviously, but the first I heard of it was when the movie was about to be finished. Someone from Superman Homepage who was active in the gay club scene reported seeing Singer partying heavily in the clubs near the end of production. His excitement at seeing Bryan Singer in the same club was tempered by seeing him doing crystal, as he told it. The movie hadn't even been finished, so it wasn't spoken with any kind of agenda, rather this person (whose name escapes me) was 110% behind the movie and later gave it a glowingly positive review. Later on, when the movie came out and a lot of people criticized the editing of it, the original source and a few other people who claimed to have worked on the movie but refused to give names (for obvious reasons) repeated the story in various places.

More recently, the book "Superman Vs. Hollywood: (which I highly recommend, by the way) contains the following paragraph: "Filming for Superman Returns, uneventful as 'event' pictures go, was completed in the fall of 2005. That left less than a year for optical effects to be completed and for Singer to edit together his footage. The marathon effort may have prompted Singer to become disconnected in the home stretch: sources close to the production maintain that his editing duties were compromised by excessive partying and bleary-eyed orchestration in the days following."

Again, the lack of people willing to go on record and give names hurts the story, BUT it also makes perfect sense. It doesn't HAVE to be true, but I'm convinced that it is. Singer absolutely looks and acts like a "tweaker". It would explain a LOT, is all I'm saying. Maybe he'll come out one day and admit it, but for now, I'll file it as "Unproven, but probably true." Being a "workaholic" in Hollywood, after all, usually means lots of chemical "help", and nobody who works in the movie business is a saint or even a choir boy. Just sayin'.

Redeemer
10-28-2013, 09:56 PM
Even Dolph Lundren's "Punisher" movie.

Why does everyone always mispell the last name??? I can not tell you how many time ive seen the name mispelled or mis-pronounced :lol: Lundgren D=Silent
Pronounced Lung-Grin :P

Krutch
10-28-2013, 10:12 PM
Mmm, you could be right. Then again, the "sources" the book refers to may just well be the forums itself. Which... again, could be nothing. I'm less in the "Unproven, but probably true." category and more in the "Hollywood is Hollywood" category, where there's probably a percentage of truth in it, but is wildly exaggerated. i.e. the poster probably just saw him at a bar at some point.

Leo656
10-28-2013, 10:19 PM
Why does everyone always mispell the last name??? I can not tell you how many time ive seen the name mispelled or mis-pronounced :lol: Lundgren D=Silent
Pronounced Lung-Grin :P

Guilty. I'm usually better than that, sorry. No excuse, as I actually like his work. Doesn't have much range but eh, he's good at what he needs to do.

Krutch: The rest of the book is pretty meticulously researched and full of some pretty incendiary "inside" information from Hollywood that could probably get them sued if it wasn't able to be verified. That's what makes me feel it's likely true. I hear you, though, the lack of a named source is problematic. But some stories you just can't repeat without omitting the names or else you risk some kind of trouble, so it goes both ways. Being in and around the wrestling business, I've seen and heard some stuff that people'd be gobsmacked to know about, but I'm morally obligated not to say anything. Just one of the pitfalls of working with public figures.

It doesn't necessarily make me like or respect Singer less as a person if it's true, it just does explain a lot and it's unfortunate. He wouldn't be the first or the last, though, I mean it's Hollywood. :lol: Literally 99% of them are on drugs, statistically speaking Singer would almost have to be one of them, whether that specific story was true or not.

Krutch
10-28-2013, 10:44 PM
Oh I hear you, dude. I work in the film industry and am well aware of the crazy **** that goes on. And there's been sets i've worked on where theres rumours going on about so-and-so and doing this and that. And its like "Well, no thats not true. But there's something so much, much worse that I can't say lol". So i know what you mean. And I wouldnt respect/disrespect Singer any more or less either. It's moreso just me putting more stock into people I know and trust than unnamed sources. But for all we know, we're both wrong and its much much worse lol

Redeemer
10-29-2013, 10:28 AM
Guilty. I'm usually better than that, sorry. No excuse, as I actually like his work. Doesn't have much range but eh, he's good at what he needs to do.
I am actually not a big fan, but its my last name and I actually had someone pro-nounce it lung-den yesterday so....just trying to inform people :P