Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I've followed the news and reviews on Superman Returns over the past weeks and noted people harping about some of the things they found unbelievable about the movie (granted, some are justified), creating huge debates between longtime fans and haters, and a question came to me:

If Superman were a newly conceived idea, and not an established comic/hero franchise, would we buy any of it?

I think that there are a ton of elements of Superman that people readily accept because that's the way its always been, but that people would tear apart or not believe in a new creation. A lot of the same stuff that makes the Man of Steel iconic, like the fact that no one connects Supes and Clark Kent or the fact that Superman's only weakness is Kryptonite, would be totally ripped to shreds by new audiences.

I think people have gotten to be a bit over-critical of movies, and entertainment in general. It's been a while since anything as universal as Superman (or Batman or the the X-men) has been created- we're not seeing any new long term icons or heroes because people have become hyper-sensitive. Part of it is maybe just greater cinema saavy, but it seems to me that criticizing a movie is considered far 'hipper' than just enjoying it and letting the little things slide.

Agreed.

But this should be in the Superman forum.

I agree. That's why I don't buy into Superman or Batman. The X-Men, on the other hand, I think could last with today's critics.

Originally posted by epicadventure
I've followed the news and reviews on Superman Returns over the past weeks and noted people harping about some of the things they found unbelievable about the movie (granted, some are justified), creating huge debates between longtime fans and haters, and a question came to me:

If Superman were a newly conceived idea, and not an established comic/hero franchise, would we buy any of it?

I think that there are a ton of elements of Superman that people readily accept because that's the way its always been, but that people would tear apart or not believe in a new creation. A lot of the same stuff that makes the Man of Steel iconic, like the fact that no one connects Supes and Clark Kent or the fact that Superman's only weakness is Kryptonite, would be totally ripped to shreds by new audiences.

I think people have gotten to be a bit over-critical of movies, and entertainment in general. It's been a while since anything as universal as Superman (or Batman or the the X-men) has been created- we're not seeing any new long term icons or heroes because people have become hyper-sensitive. Part of it is maybe just greater cinema saavy, but it seems to me that criticizing a movie is considered far 'hipper' than just enjoying it and letting the little things slide.


Well put mate,i agree.
a movie like superman,spiderman etc needs to be enjoyed not questioned.
i remember the first time i saw superman.
i truely believed a man could fly.As did every other 5 your old that saw the movie.

Originally posted by epicadventure
I've followed the news and reviews on Superman Returns over the past weeks and noted people harping about some of the things they found unbelievable about the movie (granted, some are justified), creating huge debates between longtime fans and haters, and a question came to me:

If Superman were a newly conceived idea, and not an established comic/hero franchise, would we buy any of it?

I think that there are a ton of elements of Superman that people readily accept because that's the way its always been, but that people would tear apart or not believe in a new creation. A lot of the same stuff that makes the Man of Steel iconic, like the fact that no one connects Supes and Clark Kent or the fact that Superman's only weakness is Kryptonite, would be totally ripped to shreds by new audiences.

I think people have gotten to be a bit over-critical of movies, and entertainment in general. It's been a while since anything as universal as Superman (or Batman or the the X-men) has been created- we're not seeing any new long term icons or heroes because people have become hyper-sensitive. Part of it is maybe just greater cinema saavy, but it seems to me that criticizing a movie is considered far 'hipper' than just enjoying it and letting the little things slide.


very very well put, thank you for posting this. I feel bad for the people who can't just enjoy movies like Superman Returns and Spiderman. When you don't nitpick them to death than you can truelly see the beauty of these films (and films like them)

Originally posted by epicadventure
I've followed the news and reviews on Superman Returns over the past weeks and noted people harping about some of the things they found unbelievable about the movie (granted, some are justified), creating huge debates between longtime fans and haters, and a question came to me:

If Superman were a newly conceived idea, and not an established comic/hero franchise, would we buy any of it?

I think that there are a ton of elements of Superman that people readily accept because that's the way its always been, but that people would tear apart or not believe in a new creation. A lot of the same stuff that makes the Man of Steel iconic, like the fact that no one connects Supes and Clark Kent or the fact that Superman's only weakness is Kryptonite, would be totally ripped to shreds by new audiences.

I think people have gotten to be a bit over-critical of movies, and entertainment in general. It's been a while since anything as universal as Superman (or Batman or the the X-men) has been created- we're not seeing any new long term icons or heroes because people have become hyper-sensitive. Part of it is maybe just greater cinema saavy, but it seems to me that criticizing a movie is considered far 'hipper' than just enjoying it and letting the little things slide.

It's the same with any item of yesterday...I mean would people such as Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, etc. be as popular were they to be introduced now rather than then? It applies to many if not most pop icons (actual person or character).

Also, we wouldn't go into critical detail as to how James Bond survives all of his near-death situations in a new film so why deeply question basic matters of Superman that have always been there...now? In addition, scientifically there are countless theories that could plausably explain Superman's powers and abilities so its not utter make believe. Regarding his concealed identity, I believe it goes together with the times as I mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
It's the same with any item of yesterday...I mean would people such as Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, etc. be as popular were they to be introduced now rather than then? It applies to many if not most pop icons (actual person or character).

Also, we wouldn't go into critical detail as to how James Bond survives all of his near-death situations in a new film so why deeply question basic matters of Superman that have always been there...now? In addition, scientifically there are countless theories that could plausably explain Superman's powers and abilities so its not utter make believe. Regarding his concealed identity, I believe it goes together with the times as I mentioned earlier.

i think its more you go into the movie knowing that the hero isn't going to die. There was no way they were going to have made a huge movie and publicised it for more to come if they were going to kill superman, same with batman, and to some extent, with the Xmen. its like watching Batfink cartoons, you KNOW that at the end, Kung Foo was gonna karate chop someone and Batfink was gonna save the day. it takes the fun out of it.

Originally posted by tabby999
i think its more you go into the movie knowing that the hero isn't going to die. There was no way they were going to have made a huge movie and publicised it for more to come if they were going to kill superman, same with batman, and to some extent, with the Xmen. its like watching Batfink cartoons, you KNOW that at the end, Kung Foo was gonna karate chop someone and Batfink was gonna save the day. it takes the fun out of it.

Perhaps, but we all knew Anakin would become Vader, Jesus would die (Passion), King Kong was going to die, Bond will never die, Titanic will sink, yet we continue to love these stories and many others just the same. In addition, I do believe films such as X-Men 3 are helping to change the perception that lead characters in comic book films can not die.

Well, in the case of X-Men, I think they're free to kill off characters because there are so many more to carry the movie. The solo heroes, yeah, you don't expect to see them die.

Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
Perhaps, but we all knew Anakin would become Vader, Jesus would die (Passion), King Kong was going to die, Bond will never die, Titanic will sink, yet we continue to love these stories and many others just the same. In addition, I do believe films such as X-Men 3 are helping to change the perception that lead characters in comic book films can not die.

i didn't like any of those stories. and in X2 didn't on of the main mutants sacrifice herself? i do believe that she did. in V For Vandetta (dont read on if you han't seen it, i dont know how to use spoilers), V dies. did it make them better movies? maybe. does every movie have to end with the hero winning. hell no.

Originally posted by tabby999
i didn't like any of those stories. and in X2 didn't on of the main mutants sacrifice herself? i do believe that she did. in V For Vandetta (dont read on if you han't seen it, i dont know how to use spoilers), V dies. did it make them better movies? maybe. does every movie have to end with the hero winning. hell no.

I actually enjoyed a good portion of those stories, some of us did and others did not. Whether it made (X2, V) them better films or not is up to opinion, but those moments in those films did produce somewhat more suspense for first-time audiences/viewers. For the record though, Superman Returns did place Superman in a coma and nearly killed him, producing a more mortal feel to the film version of the character in some ways.

yeah but in all the superman movies at some point he comes close to dying right? its nothing new, they do it in all of them, much like Bond. theres not really any suspence when we've seen it happen 5 times (or for bond 20)

Originally posted by tabby999
yeah but in all the superman movies at some point he comes close to dying right? its nothing new, they do it in all of them, much like Bond. theres not really any suspence when we've seen it happen 5 times (or for bond 20)

But like all the Bond films we (fans) are still always eager to see the next incarnation (with the exception of Bond 21 of course which has received very negative reaction). Superman hasn't come close to death very often actually, only twice really out of five films and SR pushed it a bit further.

and whats the reason for the negative reaction the new bond movie? is it because you (the fans) are sick of the same thing happening over and over? is it a bad script (well a worse than the last few script)?
and having the same thing happen in 2 out of 5 movies still isn't really inspired. sure, that dosn't leave much for the movie makers to go with, and i will admit they did a pretty good job with Superman 3 (having superman fighting his inner demons), but dont you want more than just the same thing cropping up over and over?

Originally posted by tabby999
and whats the reason for the negative reaction the new bond movie? is it because you (the fans) are sick of the same thing happening over and over? is it a bad script (well a worse than the last few script)?
and having the same thing happen in 2 out of 5 movies still isn't really inspired. sure, that dosn't leave much for the movie makers to go with, and i will admit they did a pretty good job with Superman 3 (having superman fighting his inner demons), but dont you want more than just the same thing cropping up over and over?

I was actually referring to Superman fans but anyways...the bad vibe behind Casino Royale (Bond 21) is because of the casting. It wasn't the "same thing", Superman was seriously weakened by the main villain but not delivered to the line of death such as he was now barely surviving. I think the problem with the film(s) would lie primarily with the writers and or director rather than the character himself. The character can't be hailed as repetitive simply because the writer/director failed to illustrate the film in proper form.

Originally posted by tabby999
and whats the reason for the negative reaction the new bond movie? is it because you (the fans) are sick of the same thing happening over and over? is it a bad script (well a worse than the last few script)?


I think its only over hair colour of the Bond, I dont see any problem with it so I dont know if its just that or not. I mean really, who complains about hair colour of all things...

But yeah, if Superman was a new thing, everyone would complain over Lois not being able to see that Clark and Superman look exactly the same.

if boredom and fatigue sets in with peoples attitudes towards superheros from the golden age then we could always rely on the modern ones

angle grinder man

http://www.lysistrataproject.org/assets/AngleGrinderMan.gif

well said epicadventure. From wat i have seen, the only good things of singerman returns are what we already know that is good about the superman icon. But there is nothing new and most of the stuff is under-whelming and incredibly weak. Why on earth can't superman be viewed as a stand-alone product rather than this franchise we MUST love. ??????

Damn, you people read into sooooo much crap! Most of the movie critics are IDIOTS!!!!!! The Matrix got a "D" when it came out and Open Water got an "A" WTF!!!!!!! What morons? The Matrix is one of the best movies ever and Open is one of the worst movies ever! Who cares what someone thinks? Just remember, most people are DUMB, no offense! Someone in the Superman forum has a thread that Superman Returns was SUPERBAD! What an idiot! That movie was Great. Critics are DORKS! Probably big fat losers that sit around and watch movies and try to find something wrong with them instead of seeing why they are a great movie! AS far as BOND? Dont' EVER disrespect James Bond, he's an icon. And knowing that he is going to win in the end, doesn't make his movies less likeable. He's James Bond....GET REAL!!! He's the SHIT!!!