No. It’s because it had a vastly less interesting story to tell than Man of Steel.
DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
I wasn't terribly clear, my bad, I'm talking about character qualities.
Story is one thing, but people literally mentioned character qualities that were identical to Cavill and different to Reeve as if they didn't watch the movie, while saying that was a problem for them.
I didn't care for Superman Returns because I felt like I saw it already (and the first version was done better.)
I wanted to see a new Superman story front to back - not one I'd already seen many times.
I wanted to see a new Superman story front to back - not one I'd already seen many times.
I'd love to know what they're smoking over in DC movie land because according to the director "Blue Beetle" tells only one third of the story, which will then be finished over two subsequent films.
Films which, let's be honest, have almost zero chance of being made.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...beetle-director-confirms-dcu-film-1235521158/
Films which, let's be honest, have almost zero chance of being made.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...beetle-director-confirms-dcu-film-1235521158/
Last edited:
Agreed, and for all of the defense of the Salkind Superman as some pillar of virtue, wiping memories against a person's will (a major plot point in Superman II) and being a deadbeat dad in the failed Superman Returns made him something of a fraud hiding behind the image of virtue, which he was (apparently) willing to let people believe.
Thank you for your thoughtful post. That is one reason I feel the DCEU Superman resonates with real people in ways other adaptations could not--and overall he is struggling to be a part of the world, rather than stand above it (which the DCEU Luthor--in his insecurities and misapplied philosophies--failed to understand), which are lessons he has to learn in both MoS and BvS.
I dunno... From what I recall, the film provided enough exposition that it could stand on its own if you hadn't seen the earlier movies it referenced. I mean, countless movies' plots are driven by events in the characters' past that are explained to the audience along the way, so that's not a dealbreaker.
If anything, I might have liked SR better if I didn't remember the Donner films. One of its problems for me is that it felt like a rehash and didn't offer the kind of fresh perspective on Superman that I was expecting from Bryan Singer after what he achieved with X-Men.
Speak for yourself. I'm more excited by seeing Superman as a rescuer than a "brawler," and SR had some pretty cool rescue sequences. I'd rather see a superhero story celebrate the saving of lives than the inflicting of pain or destruction.
No, the problem with SR, aside from its unoriginality, was how languid it was. Everyone's performance was so muted and subdued, like they were all mildly sedated. Singer was trying too hard to be solemn and thoughtful and didn't remember to have fun. I thought for years that Brandon Routh was a poor casting choice for Superman, until I saw him as Ray Palmer in the Arrowverse and realized he would've been a fantastic Superman if he'd been allowed to be more expressive and upbeat.
I said at the time that the problem with Superman Returns was that it was a big-budget blockbuster trying too hard to be a small indie film, while the problem with Batman Begins was that it was a small indie film trying too hard to be a big-budget blockbuster.
I liked the Jor-El parts. If anything, one of MoS's problems is that Jor-El is more the hero of the film than his son is.
Which I still felt was a copout. Again, what I like to see is superheroes rescuing people. The purpose of power should be to protect, not to destroy. When characters fight, we should see the people they're fighting for, because that gives it a purpose beyond mere chaos. The Avengers was great at focusing on the human-level impact of the battle and the heroes' ongoing efforts to protect civilians. The Metropolis battle in Superman II was also great at that, even if Lester's reshoots added a lot of distracting slapstick. MoS mostly ignoring the issue of civilians -- and having Superman mostly ignore it -- was terrible, but BvS merely removing civilians from the arena wasn't much better, because it just made it a fight for its own sake with little attention paid to what they were fighting for. At the very least, they should've shown the heroes taking steps to move the battle away from civilians or evacuate the area at superspeed -- have the emptiness of the climactic arena be the result of their protective actions rather than just a lucky happenstance.
That's why Supernan The Movie was so great. He caught criminals and to care of Luther and the missiles but he also showed his compassion and carrying for the civilians. During his down time he even got a little old ladies cat out of a tree. Not many superhero movies are showing that anymore. The avengers did it as well as the 2nd one and of course the earlier movies but now everything had degraded into humor and big battles. It's gotten boring.
I know this is DC and I inserted Marvel talk on here but I needed it to help make my point.
I think history has proven that people sure as hell remember the 78 Superman film, even more casual fans. Its an iconic film, it's never been some kind of obscure, forgotten piece of media at any point. It basically was Superman for any casual person for a long time, because even if they didn't read comics or watch cartoons they almost certainly were familiar with Christopher Reeve's Superman, even if they didn't have the movies memorized or anything like that. I have literally no idea why you'd think the movie was ever forgotten about, there are many, many movies made before I was born (including Superman 1978) that I'm very familiar with, and Superman is literally iconic in the general sense (not just a comic nerd sense), from its cast down to its soundtrack.
A movie that served as a semi-sequel to Superman/Superman II made by a competent director with a good script would have probably done great, both with people who grew up with the movie and people more familiar with, say, the animated Superman stuff from the 90s. But what we got was a tedious, dull and grey Superman story that wasted a good to great cast and failed at basically everything it was trying to do.
The problem for me is that my opinion of "Superman: The Movie" is not as high as it used to be. This is why I find it difficult to use it as the "gold standard" that other comic book movies should be measured against. It just hasn't aged very well for me. However, I must admit that the sequence featuring Superman's debut in Metropolis is still brilliant. As for "Superman Returns", I'm afraid I couldn't tell whether the movie was a sequel or remake of the 1978 film.
I still love it. It just seems more grounded than today's superhero movies. Plus the music was a blast.
Yep Next to Batman the movie 1966 it is my favorite superhero movie.
Presentation is a huge part of it. Routh didn't strike as believable. Milage, etc.
Superman '78 is the ne plus ultra of superhero movies. The very best any subsequent entry in the genre can hope to achieve is second place.
If one wants to compare superhero movies.
At one point, Kevin Feige was showing Superman '78 to filmmakers at Marvel as an example of what to strive for in regards to tone and verisimilitude.
I find it incongruous that the Earthly stuff strives so hard for verisimilitude, but the spacey stuff is absolute gibberish, especially in Jor-El's tour of the universe in the Fortress. Not to mention the total impracticality of the Kryptonian designs. Those crystal buildings may look distinctive onscreen, but where the hell do people sit? Where's the fridge?
Ok. I'm not a filmmaker. I do not compare movies. A film either works as it stands or it doesn't. Comparing it to another film does little for me.
It has never been a "gold standard". It was just another adaptation--one that was filled with the kind of asinine humor that soiled the image of a superhero live action production thanks to the worst elements from Dozier's Batman series. Its plot (if you can call it that) was all over the place and so ridiculous (the entire Luthor scheme and how it was executed) that it took viewers out of the story. The Krypton sequence had the most weight and gave a glimpse of what the film could have been in terms of tone. Superhero movies did not come into their own until 1998's Blade, where the content--while not attempting a fully faithful adaptation of the 1973 source--brought the best of the character (and other Marvel vampire stories) into a film with a tight, thrilling narrative in a workable mix of fantasy and reality.
From that point, only a handful of superhero movies have reached that level, while the rest might as well have been the dreaded Legends of the Superheroes and episodes of Filmation's The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse and Heckle & Jeckle, since they were just as silly and/or doing anything "just because".
I'm sorry that Mort Weisinger and Richard Donner kicked your dog when you were a kid, Trek_God_1 
I'm sorry that Mort Weisinger and Richard Donner kicked your dog when you were a kid, Trek_God_1
Listen, you--that pooch meant everything to me!