View Single Post
Old December 12 2010, 06:20 PM   #113
Christopher's Avatar
Re: Full story for Bryan Singer's planned SUPERMAN RETURNS sequel reve

Myasishchev wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote:
Yes, and I was unimpressed by him. I don't get why people make such a fuss over Spacey in general, and in particular I didn't find his Luthor all that interesting, in part because he was saddled with such an inadequate version of the character.
Spacey in general? The guy's a national treasure. American Beauty, Usual Suspects, LA Confidential, and the delightfully charming K-Pax? All meaningless?
I didn't say "meaningless," because I'm not so arrogant as to think my personal opinions are in any way representative of universal truth. If Spacey works for you as an actor, if his performances have meaning to you, I have no problem with that. But individuals have different tastes. I'm merely stating my own preferences as an individual. I'm not claiming they're better or more valid than anyone else's. And I'm certainly not going to call anyone else blind or deluded simply for having different tastes from my own.

As for the films you listed, I've only seen The Usual Suspects and LA Confidential, and neither of them did much for me. I don't get why people extol the twist ending of Suspects; I saw it coming a mile away (and no, I wasn't spoiled in advance, beyond knowing in general terms that there was a twist coming). And Confidential was an unpleasantly violent and nihilistic film in which the cops were no better than another group of mobsters, and I hate stories about mobsters. Heck, I didn't even remember Spacey was in that one; he just doesn't leave a particularly strong impression on me. If you like his work, great, good for you, but different people have different tastes.

I do feel there's a certain moral conservatism that bothers people about Superman Returns. Especially in Superman's context, where they might not care if it were another character. Or, maybe, more charitably, it's that some people feel that the insoluble family situation left at the end of SR betrays their assumption that all Superman stories should be unremittingly idealistic. In any event, I feel it is appropriate to point this out (and as glibly as possible), because it's not a criticism of the work. It's like saying you don't like Starry Night because you don't like the color blue--that's your bag, not van Gogh's.
Well, it's certainly not a factor in my dissatisfaction with the film, and I resent the assumption that everyone who dislikes a film must do so for only a single universal reason. I'm an individual, and I make my own choices for my own reasons. There are many different opinions of any given thing, and that means there are multiple reasons to like it and multiple reasons to dislike it. It's simpleminded and petty to try to lump everyone on the other side into a single, simplistic category. The mature thing to do is to ask people individually what their reasons were for not liking it, to let them speak for themselves rather than prejudging them as a group.

Presents Galore wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
But I have to wonder -- could Singer, the man who created such a compelling Magneto, have given us a more interesting Luthor if he hadn't been emulating the Donner movies' lame version of the character, but had instead based it on the modern comics' corporate magnate or come up with his own original archvillain type? Would he have come up with a more satisfying Clark-Lois dynamic if he hadn't seen it as a continuation of their love affair in Superman 2? And would it have been easier to accept the new cast in their roles if the film hadn't been encouraging us to pretend they were the same people previously played by Reeve, Kidder, Hackman, et al.? All those things diminished the film for me.
I'm glad that Singer (and someone else in the production) pointed out that it wasn't a hard sequel to Superman II. That sort of comment should make it easy to imagine it as it's own thing and not the redone third installment that so many imagine it to be.
Beside the point. However "hard" or "soft" a sequel he intended it to be, he still deliberately made his takes on the characters and their relationships similar to what Donner did, and I don't think those choices worked out well. I'm not making some anal-retentive fanboy quibble about continuity. I'm saying that I wonder if fresher ideas for the characters would've worked better than what we got. (By the same token, I would've liked to see a new, original take on Kryptonian architecture rather than a rehash of the crystal stuff, and I would've liked to hear John Ottman's new take on a Superman theme rather than a mere recycling of Williams. Not that those elements of the old movies weren't good, but doing something new is better than copying something good that's already been done. Because copies are never as good as the originals.)
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote