75 Years of Superman

[Jester]

To be fair, it has been awhile since I watched Superman Returns. Might ought to rewatch the series period.

[Leo656]

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.

[Jester]

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]

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]

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]

I don't think anyone calling Superman IV dog sh*t is an opinion, frankly. That movie can only be enjoyed ironically, and even then, the person enjoying it should be ashamed of themselves.

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.

[Krutch]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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.

Originally Posted by Leo656

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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 Lundgren D=Silent
Pronounced Lung-Grin

[Krutch]

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]

Originally Posted by Redeemer

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

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. 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]

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]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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