exanda kane
Senior Member
It is more the underlining ethos DC comics have taken with their reinvention of their best franchises, the way they have strove and taken measures to just not flippantly throw all the material they have into production, hoping unrealistic CGI effects will be a banker, and forget the human narrative.
X-Men 3 is a prime example of this, the story is amock with a sense of self indulgence, and the development of entire characters are simply lacking, having no real importance to the story, other than to deomnstate their mutant power. I believe Colossus is a prime example of this. Instead of a russian farmboy with a deep sense of honour and loyalty, he is simply an american high school jock, who throws Hugh Jackman around. Now, of course, Colossus certainly isn't a main character in the story, but it shows just how wasted the potential is, even before the character has got the chance to be developed.
In comparison, both Batman Begins and Superman Returns develop their main characters well, Christian Bale and Brandon Routh are both exellent choices, and while I haven't really seen Routh perform amazingly, he does his job, and lets the script do what its meant to. CGI sequences aren't used for the sake of it, they only enhance the human story. After the last decade has gone CGI crazy, DC made a very wise choice by going back to basics, allowing us to engage with these iconic characters again, instead of getting caught up in all the effects, the same can be said for James Bond and Casino Royale.
As I said before, I find the human story of Peter Parkers life much more interesting to watch than the action, part of Spiderman's appeal is that we may feel that we connect with Peter Parker, or at least every one of us knows a Peter Parker, he's an alienated kid, a loner and his struggle to overcome simply day to day life and issues.
When I saw the Spiderman films, I thought this was achieved, yet I felt the action scenes were anti climatic, disjointed and just a little too unreal. When I say that, I do not simply mean the quality and quantity of the CGI, but how it is used; the editing, the sound, the emotional response it evokes, all of those elements.
What I enjoy about Superman Returns is the way it is more involving than a few cliche fights with bad guys, some CGI and a weak emotional story. In many respects, its not much of an action film at all. It doesn't appeal to the audience Marvel tries to hound, doesn't lower to that level. The look of the film isn't flashy or over the top; it has a classical look to it, the influences of 30s, 40s and 50s design were a good choice, and the golden, yellow filter really works well.
Although I think Brian Singer being credited as being a hugely intelligent film maker is wrong, you have to admit, the man can hit the mark on the event movie sometimes, one that does not insult the audiences intelligence.
I'm glad that the Superman mythos has been taken in a new direction, the inclusion of the Richard character really had me doubting whether the world did need a Superman, and the idea of Lois' son was intruiging, I felt teased by it, something Singer always seems to do, but is never able to explore further.
In conclusion, I must say that before the recent reinvention of DC franchises, I found Batman and Superman to be totally uninteresting characters, well passed there sell by date and really not worth reinventing. I even found DC comics themselves duller in contrast to Marvel.
But ever since finding myself totally indifferent after watching the X-Men and Spiderman films, I've admired DC's new found care to their franchises, while Marvel shifts its factory line ever further with the help of computer generated imagery. However, that doesn't mean more money at the box office for DC, as Superman Returns proved, but then, that hardly determines whether a film is worth watching. Superman Returns just struck a cord with me. 2 hours of emotional involving escapism.