criterionforum.org

Can't find another thread for this... though I thought there was one.

All my reservations about Brandon Routhe are thrown aside (though I'm still a little iffy on Kate Bosworth). Kevin Spacey and Frank Langella seem to be hamming it up in their roles, and given the roles that's fine by me. All in all, I think this may be the superhero film to end all superhero films - maybe a perfect illustration of Bill's monologue in the second Kill Bill film (his justification of why he Superman is unique among superheroes). Not that I take that monologue too seriously. Simply put it gets the point across, and Superman is a hero I've always liked... no matter how much a boy scout he is. Singer did a very intelligent and calculated job with the X-Men. I'm banking he'll do even better here. In terms of the translation/use of iconic comic-book imagery to/in film, from the looks of the trailer, I think Singer may have taken it to a new level far beyond what others have so far been able to accomplish. There seems to be a level of depth and incite in these images and the ideas they convey (ex: how he frames and spaces out the crowd staring up in awe at Superman / how he frames Superman staring down at the world) that other pulp adaptations have not yet reached. Maybe I'm just reading to into it... it's only two trailers, but I'm excited for this one... really excited.

I read an interview with Singer where he said that he drew his main inspiration from Alex Ross' work on Supes. That's certainly a good start!

Wasn't that speech something about Superman pretending to be a regular guy, not a regular guy acting the part of a hero?

That's actually flip-flopped a few times depending on what you're talking about, the comic, the movie, etc. I kind of preferred it when Clark was the real guy (or him being his 'normal' sense) and Superman was this ideal he was trying to portray and live up to - it was more interesting and the shtick with Superman pretending to be clutz got old fast. It's flip-flopped with Batman too, but I think that was a better example of a superhero who put on the 'disguise' when he was pretending to be a normal civilian (though sometimes, even before Batman Begins, it's exaggerated a bit, and it's Batman trying to ham it up as the rich, freewheelin' billionaire playboy).

The first trailer voice over, with its [paraphrasing] "they have the potential to be a good people all they need is someone to guide them and I am sending you my only son" weirded me out with its Christ-like overtones. I think it's just an unfortunate coincidence.

That said, the latest trailer has me very excited. I think this is going to be great. I'm not even that big a Superman fan to begin with, but the trailers have hit all the right notes so far.

Yeah, but it could be interesting to play that up. You know, Superman's been pushed as the supreme superhero ideal in everyway - on numerous occasions, DC's even wrapped him up in an American flag. Maybe that can say something about the values and ideals of the people/culture he's trying to protect. Will WB ever explore those possibilities? Nah...

Will Singer do it... at least to a certain extent I think.

Yeah, he will, but not very far. That's the way it is these days. Take a look at X-Men 2, Singer had a 'coming out' scene (probably inspired by his own homosexuality) - worked great, it really adds something to the whole mutant-as-(fill in the blank) metaphor. But that was it. He gets points for trying, but scratching the surface doesn't do much in the long run.

It's probably hoping too much, I mean it's a big studio, big budget summer movie. X-Men 2 and Superman have only one purpose - to make a TON of money. Still, look at E.T. - completely commercial, one targeting KIDS for crissakes, but IMO, it's actually a great movie, arguably Spielberg's best. Wouldn't that be a cool trick, a Superman movie that satisfies the masses in the most superficial way, but also holds up as serious art? Something that would top the box office AND win over the snobs in, say, the Village Voice's year-end movie poll?

How to pull this off? Don't have a clue, but again, it would be a cool trick if a great director managed to pull that off.

Antoine Doinel wrote:The first trailer voice over, with its [paraphrasing] "they have the potential to be a good people all they need is someone to guide them and I am sending you my only son" weirded me out with its Christ-like overtones. I think it's just an unfortunate coincidence.

This wouldn't be the first time Superman's current owners have tried to Christianize a Jewish archetype. Siegel and Schuster were Jewish and the character began as a modern-day Moses. It would be more interesting to see somebody try to explore the implications of that archetype, quite frankly.

hearthesilence wrote:Take a look at X-Men 2, Singer had a 'coming out' scene (probably inspired by his own homosexuality)

I had no idea he was gay.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:

hearthesilence wrote:Take a look at X-Men 2, Singer had a 'coming out' scene (probably inspired by his own homosexuality)

I had no idea he was gay.

Singer is as camp as a row of pink tents!

hearthesilence wrote:one targeting KIDS for crissakes

Is a film that targets children inherently inferior to a film that targets adults?

Inherently no, but this is Hollywood, and when it comes to live action family films, pictures like "Babe"/"Babe 2" and "E.T." are all too rare. Look at a 'classic' like "Sound of Music" or any of Diz-nee's three billion live action flicks...growing up, that's what the kids were 'supposed' to like, but I didn't like them as a kid, I don't like them now.

zedz wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:The first trailer voice over, with its [paraphrasing] "they have the potential to be a good people all they need is someone to guide them and I am sending you my only son" weirded me out with its Christ-like overtones. I think it's just an unfortunate coincidence.

This wouldn't be the first time Superman's current owners have tried to Christianize a Jewish archetype. Siegel and Schuster were Jewish and the character began as a modern-day Moses. It would be more interesting to see somebody try to explore the implications of that archetype, quite frankly.

Is there any more on this? I'm not a theologian or anything, but it sounds interesting.

hearthesilence wrote:This wouldn't be the first time Superman's current owners have tried to Christianize a Jewish archetype. Siegel and Schuster were Jewish and the character began as a modern-day Moses. It would be more interesting to see somebody try to explore the implications of that archetype, quite frankly.

Is there any more on this? I'm not a theologian or anything, but it sounds interesting.[/quote]

Well, the origin story (baby sent away by his parents to avoid mass death, discovered and raised in a different culture, realises his origin and destiny and becomes a Great Man) is based on the Biblical account of Moses. It's also, tellingly, an immigrant story (again, reflecting the background of his creators).

Sometime in the nineties, I believe (I'm not a fan, so this is all a bit vague), DC decided to revamp Superman by redeveloping the mythos in decidely Christian terms, with Superman dying and being resurrected. It sounds like the new movie might be attempting a similar tactic by turning that Mosaic origin story into a Christian one - a bit of a stretch, it seems to me, and we've already had one E.T.

Yeah, I remember, it actually made headlines. At the time, it seemed like a cheap ploy to get sales (it wasn't a best-selling title at the time) - the titles were going to continue, so no one thought Superman would stay "dead" for long.

That was during the comic crisis... everyone killed off people. Wolverine almost died. Magneto pulled his adamantium from his skeleton. Batman was paralyzed, and Superman was killed by Doomsday. I hate to break it to you guys, but I don't think that had as much to do with changing the mythos ideologically than it had to do with trying to boost sales. At that point, anything interesting that might happen to the heroes was helpful to them. Marvel and DC even did the marvel vs. dc and marvel/dc series a few years down the road. All of that was to help the industry as a whole.

I'm slowly coming around to the indie comics I ignored as a kid (partially 'cause I couldn't buy them - they were stocked in the 'mature' section, like they were porn or something).

But I left Marvel and DC behind for several reasons, two of which were: the artwork was getting too ugly and cartoonish (thanks Liefeld), and the stories were basically crappy soap operas.

Take away the costumes and superpowers, and what you have left resembles daytime soap operas. "Oh, Logan loves Jean, but she's in love with Scott!" "Oh no, Jean died!" "Wait, Jean's actually still alive! It was an evil twin that died!" "Kurt's in a coma!" "Kurt's out of a coma, but now all of his friends just died on national TV!" And that was the EARLIER stuff, it got a lot worse in the 90's. I wonder if Chris Claremont got his start on General Hospital.

hearthesilence wrote:I wonder if Chris Claremont got his start on General Hospital.

That's not fair. Claremont actually used to be good.

Yeah, I know. "Days of Future Past" is arguably the best thing ever written for the X-Men.

That comic rocked my young world.

The Days of Future Past TV episodes were pretty damn good too as I recall...

You mean the animated X-Men TV series? They adapted that storyline for the show?

hearthesilence wrote:Yeah, I know. "Days of Future Past" is arguably the best thing ever written for the X-Men.

Before that, Claremont's "Mutant Massacre" storyline about the Morlock genocide was pretty rivetting, too. Granted, I was 11 or 12, but scary stuff nonetheless.

I stopped reading X-Men when Jim Lee started drawing it.

"Days of Future Past" was published around 1981 and it probably helped that Byrne was co-plotting the X-Men at the time.

Claremont did "Mutant Massacre" in 1986 when Byrne was long gone.

You are correct. Got confused with all the Days of Future Pluperfect titles.