Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

[therealsb63]

Well, naturalism doesn't mean actually being like reality, it means creating the feel of reality. Donner's buzzword in the production of Superman was "verisimilitude" -- a word that literally means "similarity to the truth." I.e. not actually being the truth, but resembling it, looking and feeling like it. Yes, the characters acted in broad ways and did physically impossible things, but Metropolis had the feel and texture of a real city, the Planet felt like a believable newsroom rather than a Hollywood set, and when Superman took off, it looked like he was actually physically rising into the air. Not to mention that Christopher Reeve acted like he was really, matter-of-factly Superman instead of giving a campy or self-conscious interpretation of Superman. So yes, it was a naturalistic take on a superhero film -- certainly a damn sight more than Burton's or Schumacher's Batman films, say.

I completely agree. These are things I tried to express above.

Hiya, FSM...

The biggest drawback to "Superman Returns"...

It's mentioned how Reeve really lived the part and became Superman...what happened to Brandon Routh's portrayal was instead of letting him be Brandon Routh playing Superman, you can feel he was made to play Christopher Reeve playing Superman.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I love Donner's original Superman film, and I understand that eh shot scenes for the second to make them one big film apparently. That said I hate the Donner cut of Superman 2. The scenes Lester added added a bit of levity to the proceedings. And I listened to Donner's own commentary, and, man what an ass.

The scene where Superman save Lois falling out of a building was unbelievable to me. Sure, superman can go that fast, but I'd always imagine that he wouldn't be able to move quite that fast (like the speed of electricity) without building up to that speed for a least a few seconds.

 

[Christopher]

I love Donner's original Superman film, and I understand that eh shot scenes for the second to make them one big film apparently.

The original plan was for Donner to shoot the two films back-to-back and release them in succession, as was done with things like Back to the Future Part 2 and Part 3 or the 2-part Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows -- or as Richard Lester did with his two Three Musketeers movies for the Salkinds. But there was a falling-out between the Salkinds and Donner when he was about 70 percent through filming the second film, and Lester was brought in not only to finish the film, but to reshoot enough of Donner's material that the majority of the final film would be Lester's and he could get sole director credit, shutting Donner out entirely. They also cut out Marlon Brando's scenes from the second film due to, I believe, a salary dispute.

Originally the plan was for the nuclear missile Superman tossed into space to release the Phantom Zone villains, so one would lead directly into the other.

The scene where Superman save Lois falling out of a building was unbelievable to me. Sure, superman can go that fast, but I'd always imagine that he wouldn't be able to move quite that fast (like the speed of electricity) without building up to that speed for a least a few seconds.

But it's much better for Lois from a character perspective than the version Lester gave us. As I put it in my blog review linked above:

The Donner version of S2 opens with Lois simply looking at Clark Kent and noticing that he resembles Superman. Unlike virtually every other incarnation of Lois Lane, she is actually perceptive enough not to be permanently fooled by a pair of glasses. Then she does an experiment to test her notion, drawing Clark clothes onto a photo of Superman. Thus convinced, she dramatically risks her life to prove her conclusion, jumping out a window to force Clark to change to Superman and save her. He manages to save her without revealing his identity, and she’s left uncertain, but ultimately clings to her conviction when Superman shows up at Niagara Falls, and then she enacts another bold ploy to force the truth from Clark, shooting him with a blank so he thinks he’s been exposed and gives himself away. Throughout, she’s perceptive, strong-willed, and in control.

But in the Lester version, she’s so much less of all of those things. She doesn’t even begin to suspect the resemblance between Clark and Superman until she accidentally gets a glimpse of him without glasses. Instead of being observant and deducing that they’re the same man, she stumbles upon the discovery. She then tests it in a variation of the window-jump scene from the Donner version, but instead, she merely jumps into the rapids — still dangerous, true, but not as extreme and unambiguously life-or-death a gamble, and it’s not that hard for Clark to rescue her while still remaining Clark. And at that point, Lois is completely convinced she was wrong, and doesn’t even suspect anything further until Clark “accidentally” stumbles over the rug and his hand lands in the fire. Lois is taken completely by surprise. They rationalize the stumble by suggesting that maybe Clark subconsciously wanted her to know, but that makes Clark the initiator and leaves Lois far more passive. All in all, she’s a far less impressive character in this version.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think both versions are bad, groanworthy, and against character.

A truly intelligent and independent woman would test her theory without putting herself in peril, and recklessly so, while at the same time willfully reducing herself to a damsel in distress.

 

[davejames]

The biggest drawback to "Superman Returns"...

It's mentioned how Reeve really lived the part and became Superman...what happened to Brandon Routh's portrayal was instead of letting him be Brandon Routh playing Superman, you can feel he was made to play Christopher Reeve playing Superman.

Routh's Clark was a clear imitation of Reeve, but I never got the sense his Superman was. It felt very much like his own interpretation to me-- much more inward and conflicted and mysterious.

Reeve's Supes was a lot more open and friendly and direct.

 

[DWF]

I perfer the Lester version of Superman II, the Donner version has the same ending of the first movie and there's some nice bits in the Lester version that's missing in the other one. Lois was better fleshed out in the Donner version but, the rest of the movie feels badly edited and disjointed at least to me.

It has the same ending because Donner envisioned a two-part film from ther beginning and the "turn-back-time" sequence was supposed to be at the end of part two, not one.

The editing and unevenness is a side effect of how the Donner version had to be reconstructed, as it was never truly finished.

But at the time the first movie was edited and released Donner was still working on the second one, so I have to wonder how the first movie was originally meant to end. Lois' car wasn't swallowed by a crack and there's really no reason for her dialogue about falling electric poles since the earthquake didn't take place after Superman went back in time.

 

[DWF]

The only really cool thing for me about Lois' fall from the building in the Donner version was that the stunt woman who played Lois in that scene was Ellen Bry, who at that point in time was also playing Juile Mason on The Amazing Spider-Man.

 

[Christopher]

I think both versions are bad, groanworthy, and against character.

A truly intelligent and independent woman would test her theory without putting herself in peril, and recklessly so, while at the same time willfully reducing herself to a damsel in distress.

Sounds nice in theory, but... how? The only way to guarantee Superman's appearance is by putting a life in danger, and you wouldn't have wanted her to endanger someone else, would you? I don't think it makes sense to say she's reduced to a damsel in distress (i.e. an intrinsically passive and subordinate role) when she's making a deliberate, calculated choice to create a danger in order to take control of the situation and force a desired outcome.

Besides, it's been a fundamental character trait of Lois Lane for 74 years that she'll unthinkingly plunge headlong into danger to get a story. So this was perfectly in character, especially since she had deduced, correctly, that Clark was Superman and thus she was in no danger. Her only miscalculation was in underestimating Clark's ingenuity at hiding his identity -- and even so, in the Donner version, she wasn't fooled and continued to believe he was Superman, eventually tricking him into giving it away. The whole time, she was the one who took the initiative and had the edge. Unlike the Lester version, who was far more passive and easily fooled.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

How about poking him with a needle?

If she's so damn sure of herself that she'll jump off a building, to her death if she's wrong, which by the way ceases to leave her in control once she's entered free fall, then trying to puncture Clark with a sterilized needle is by comparison an infinitesimal risk.

 

[DWF]

I had no problem with the hand in the fire scene in the second movie since Clark did love Lois and had to be truthful to her about who he was. Right after the interview in the first movie and he showed up as Clark, Lois went to go get ready to go, Clark straightened up lowered his and took off his glasses to tell Lois then and there who he was, I think that was just part of his upbringing that he be honest with his loved ones. I think Clark had falled for Lois right off the bat but it took Superman to geet to her.

 

[Christopher]

How about poking him with a needle?

If she's so damn sure of herself that she'll jump off a building, to her death if she's wrong, which by the way ceases to leave her in control once she's entered free fall, then trying to puncture Clark with a sterilized needle is by comparison an infinitesimal risk.

First off, where's she going to get a sterilized needle on short notice? Second, if he's Superman, then he's going to sense her coming with the needle and will dodge, or will use a burst of heat vision to break his skin. He's had a lifetime of practice at hiding his invulnerability; a simple trick like that isn't going to be enough to get past his guard.

Third, Lois Lane has never been one to play it safe. If you don't want her to do things that are "against character," then you're contradicting yourself by proposing this.

Fourth, sometimes being in control of an overall situation entails choosing to surrender that control at certain moments, with the confidence that you've arranged things in such a way that it will turn out all right. Like when you jump out of a plane after carefully checking your parachute. In this case, Superman was Lois's parachute, and she was confident that she'd made the checks correctly. Which, let's remember, she had. This version of Lois Lane figured out that Clark was Superman just by looking beyond the glasses, and that alone makes her smarter and more in control than just about any other Lois Lane.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Who said anything about short notice? I'm sure she could concoct an excuse to have a needle close at hand, say if she were doing a story about addicts. So what if it failed because Supes used his powers to cover it up; Supes used his powers to cover up what she did do in both versions of the film. In any case, I'll never buy that she would willingly jump out a window. It's ridiculous. Next.

With respect to the hand in the fire scene, I preferred the Lester version.

 

[DWF]

Fourth, sometimes being in control of an overall situation entails choosing to surrender that control at certain moments, with the confidence that you've arranged things in such a way that it will turn out all right. Like when you jump out of a plane after carefully checking your parachute. In this case, Superman was Lois's parachute, and she was confident that she'd made the checks correctly. Which, let's remember, she had. This version of Lois Lane figured out that Clark was Superman just by looking beyond the glasses, and that alone makes her smarter and more in control than just about any other Lois Lane.

She didn't look beyond his glasses if you remember she noticed at the end of the first movie that Clark was nowhere around whenever Superman was around, then thought better of it saying it was the most ridiculous thing she'd ever heard. She wasn't that much smarter than Noel Neill or Phillis Thaxter's Lois Lane, they just weren't Superman/Clark Kent's romantic interest.

 

[Christopher]

Who said anything about short notice? I'm sure she could concoct an excuse to have a needle close at hand, say if she were doing a story about addicts.

Again, character. This is Lois Lane. She's a pit bull. An idea gets into her head, she doesn't wait and plan and bide her time; she acts, even if it entails doing something that most people would consider insanely reckless. That's who she is.

In any case, I'll never buy that she would willingly jump out a window. It's ridiculous.

Then your understanding of Lois Lane is profoundly different from mine. I've seen her unthinkingly put herself in danger many times in pursuit of the truth. The only time it didn't seem in character for me was in Superman Returns, because then she put her son in danger instead of just herself, and that is something she would never, ever do.

 

[davejames]

Fourth, sometimes being in control of an overall situation entails choosing to surrender that control at certain moments, with the confidence that you've arranged things in such a way that it will turn out all right. Like when you jump out of a plane after carefully checking your parachute. In this case, Superman was Lois's parachute, and she was confident that she'd made the checks correctly. Which, let's remember, she had. This version of Lois Lane figured out that Clark was Superman just by looking beyond the glasses, and that alone makes her smarter and more in control than just about any other Lois Lane.

Well if it truly IS as obvious to her as it is to us-- because duh, the Clark disguise isn't the most convincing one ever and it's obviously Superman under there-- then I have no problem with her jumping out the window and proving her point.

But if that's the case, they is should have been JUST as freakin obvious to her during the FIRST movie. The first time Superman made his appearance, she should have been like "Dude, you're that nerdy Clark guy we just hired and who I was talking shit to all day!!" Or at the very least the next time she saw Clark again she should have noticed it was clearly the same guy (and don't try to tell me she was too emotional or distracted at the time to notice; I'm not buying that for a second).

The fact she doesn't makes me think she really only has a strong suspicion it's him (even after drawing a suit and tie on his picture), in which case it really IS a stupid and idiotic thing to jump out the window.

It's still a fun scene of course, but ultimately I think I prefer the way Lester did it.

 

[Christopher]

Well if it truly IS as obvious to her as it is to us-- because duh, the Clark disguise isn't the most convincing one ever and it's obviously Superman under there-- then I have no problem with her jumping out the window and proving her point.

But if that's the case, they is should have been JUST as freakin obvious to her during the FIRST movie. The first time Superman made his appearance, she should have been like "Dude, you're that nerdy Clark guy we just hired and who I was talking shit to all day!!" Or at the very least the next time she saw Clark again she should have noticed it was clearly the same guy (and don't try to tell me she was too emotional or distracted at the time to notice; I'm not buying that for a second).

I'm sure that if you think back, you'll remember cases in your own life when you didn't notice something for quite a while, because you couldn't see past your expectations or preconceptions, but once it finally occurred to you to look at it in a slightly different way, you suddenly recognized what had been staring you in the face the whole time. It would've seemed obvious once you noticed it, but not until you noticed it. That's how the human mind very often works. Everything we see is filtered through our preconceptions and expectations, and sometimes we can't recognize a thing until it occurs to us to look at it in just the right way.

Besides, I never said it was "obvious." That's giving both Lois and Clark too little credit. What I said was that Lois, who is a skilled investigative reporter and keen observer, was able to apply her skills and discover something that was hidden from most observers. She didn't see it right away because it wasn't obvious -- because Clark (by which I mean Reeve) did an amazingly good job at seeming like two entirely different people. And once she caught on, once she re-evaluated everything she knew about Clark and Superman and applied her formidable journalistic skills to that evidence, she became certain that they were one and the same person. The word "obvious" is miles away from what I'm talking about. Lois is supposed to be good enough to figure out things that aren't obvious. That's why they pay her the big bucks.

The fact she doesn't makes me think she really only has a strong suspicion it's him (even after drawing a suit and tie on his picture), in which case it really IS a stupid and idiotic thing to jump out the window.

An amateur observer would have a suspicion. A trained, professional journalist would derive a conclusion with a high degree of confidence. Part of being a successful professional is trusting your instincts, which are going to be much sharper and more reliable than those of an amateur. (Which is why I'm so sure of my assessment. Not to brag, more to offer it as an example, but assessing how characters would think and act is part of my profession. And I've had a lifetime to get to know the character of Lois Lane in her various forms. When it comes to assessing what is or isn't in character for her, I trust my instincts -- by which I really mean my experience and learned abilities, habits of thought that happen so automatically they feel like instinct.) You probably have the same level of confidence and assurance about the things that are part of your profession, your area of expertise. I see from your blog that you're a sculptor. I'm sure you know what it's like when you just feel that a character's pose or expression is right, that it fits, even if a non-artist wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and something that you knew was wrong. Someone else might think you were just guessing, that you couldn't possibly be sure, but you know, because that's your area of expertise and training. And Lois's expertise is in extracting truths that are hidden, in piecing together the right answers based on limited information.

It's still a fun scene of course, but ultimately I think I prefer the way Lester did it.

I think it weakens Lois way too much, as I explained. I'd rather she go to an unrealistic, life-threatening extreme in order to come off as a strong and perceptive character than be reduced to the passive, clueless, unempowered female she was in Lester's version.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I've seen her unthinkingly put herself in danger many times in pursuit of the truth.

There's a big difference, between putting oneself in danger to aggressively go after a story, and going to the ultimate extreme of attempting suicide. davejames's point as to why the secret identity must be just a suspicion is spot on.

There's absolutely no verisimilitude in Lois's behavior here, unless part of her character is that she needs in-patient psychiatric treatment.

 

[Christopher]

But she wasn't "attempting suicide." By definition, attempting suicide means taking an action that you expect will result in your probable or certain death. Lois was so confident of her conclusion that Clark was Superman -- which, again, was absolutely correct -- that she did not consider herself to be in any significant danger. She considered the risk of death to be low enough that it was worth taking that risk to achieve her goal. Which, as a survey of Lois Lane's career on screen and page will demonstrate, is something she does as a matter of routine.

Sure, as I said, she miscalculated about Clark's ingenuity at hiding his identity -- but she did not miscalculate about the level of danger she was in by jumping out that window, namely, none.

 

[JarodRussell]

But she wasn't "attempting suicide." By definition, attempting suicide means taking an action that you expect will result in your probable or certain death. Lois was so confident of her conclusion that Clark was Superman -- which, again, was absolutely correct -- that she did not consider herself to be in any significant danger. She considered the risk of death to be low enough that it was worth taking that risk to achieve her goal. Which, as a survey of Lois Lane's career on screen and page will demonstrate, is something she does as a matter of routine.

Sure, as I said, she miscalculated about Clark's ingenuity at hiding his identity -- but she did not miscalculate about the level of danger she was in by jumping out that window, namely, none.

Seriously, no. Attempting to kill yourself to prove a theory is incredibly insane.

 

[davejames]

Besides, I never said it was "obvious." That's giving both Lois and Clark too little credit. What I said was that Lois, who is a skilled investigative reporter and keen observer, was able to apply her skills and discover something that was hidden from most observers.

Sounds fine, except that we don't really see her DO any investigating or use any skills (like digging into Clark's past, for example). All she does is notice that the picture of Superman in the paper looks an awful lot like Clark when you draw a suit on him.

I get that she's a smart reporter with good instincts, but I doubt she's the ONLY one in the office who could put 2 and 2 together like that.

Yeah it does make her seem a lot smarter and sharper than how the Lester version did it, but jumping out a window-- even with Superman around-- is just a completely wacky and bizarre thing to do.

If the scene had stopped before that, and just had her continue to eye Clark suspiciously for the rest of the movie, it would have been MUCH more appropriate and believable for the character, I think.