Superman Returns

[FormerBondFan]

Anyone here seen Superman Returns?

[stockslivevan]

I like it. I never understood the venom it gets. Surely this is not as bad as say, Batman and Robin? My main criticisms of this flick is that it overuses the Donner references such as Marlon Brando footage (which I thought was completely unnecessary) and that they needed a better editor, especially for the ending because after Superman went in a coma it felt like it kept going on and on.

Other than that I still think it's solid, my favorite scene is when Superman rescues the plane, now that was fantastic. I hear that the sequel will finally give Superman a worthy foe to have a fist fight with such as Brainiac. With the technology in film today, I can imagine how big a Sueprman battle will be.

[FormerBondFan]

I still need to see this.

[Kristatos]

I didn't like the whole "Son of Superman" subplot, but I thought it was better than the last two Reeve Superman films, if not quite as good as the first two. I can understand why the studio wasn't too keen on it, though. It is the second most expensive movie ever made (after Cleopatra), even in inflation-adjusted dollars, and bombed at the box office. Studio execs tend not to be too keen on movies losing that much money. In answer to FBF's question on another thread, it seems to have killed off the prospects of the Superman/Batman film that WB were once gung-ho for, even putting a tattered poster for it in the background of one shot in I Am Legend.

[The Sweeney]

There were a few things I did like -

1. The opening title sequence
2. Brandon resembling and sounding like Reeve
3. Brando

The things I didn't like with the movie -

1. The soundtrack. Apart from the odd Williams homage bit, the rest was crap. Why didn't they just ask Williams to do the score?
2. Supermans darker looking costume. Give me the retro bright Reeve one any day, including the yello logo on the cape.
3. Lois Lane. Way too different to Margot Kidder.
4. Lex Luthor - he was a tad too evil in this. Gene Hackman's villain was always quite witty.

[Kristatos]

Why didn't they just ask Williams to do the score?

Maybe they did and he said no?

[FormerBondFan]

What about the title? Would you change it?

[Kristatos]

What about the title? Would you change it?

No, I'm fine with it.

[The Sweeney]

Why didn't they just ask Williams to do the score?

Maybe they did and he said no?

If that was the case, then the director should have had the composer rip off/copy more of the original Williams score then, rather than just the theme itself. I loved those little pieces in the original Superman, like the theme when Clark momentarily takes off his glasses after arriving in Lois's apartment, straight after the `can you read my mind' night flying scene.

The original composed music in Superman Returns was just garbage.

[Kristatos]

Why didn't they just ask Williams to do the score?

Maybe they did and he said no?

If that was the case, then the director should have had the composer rip off/copy more of the original Williams score then, rather than just the theme itself.

Yes, maybe they could have done what they did with the second Harry Potter film, where they just hired someone (Don somebody, can't remember his name) to adapt the score from the first film and compose a few original cues where needed. I think Ken Thorne did much the same thing in Superman II.

[stockslivevan]

I think it's better than Superman II, but that's mostly because I think that film was a total mess. You have a climatic sequence with Superman fighting three villains with his strength and at the same time you get a bunch of slapstick moments as if they were spliced out of the film AIRPLANE, and not only were they inappropriate for such a dramatic scene but they were very unfunny. Firing Richard Donner from Part II for some bloke who had no understanding or love for Superman is one of the most idiotic moments in film making.

[The Sweeney]

I think it's better than Superman II, but that's mostly because I think that film was a total mess. You have a climatic sequence with Superman fighting three villains with his strength and at the same time you get a bunch of slapstick moments as if they were spliced out of the film AIRPLANE, and not only were they inappropriate for such a dramatic scene but they were very unfunny. Firing Richard Donner from Part II for some bloke who had no understanding or love for Superman is one of the most idiotic moments in film making.

Superman II had the potential to be a great sequel like TDK and Empire. If only they had let Donner finish the movie.

As it is, I love parts of the new Donner cut (mainly the Brando scenes) yet thought parts of the original still worked better - Clark kissing Lois at the end to make her forget everything, the way Clark reveals himself as Superman, but all the silly bits introduced by Lester ruined it overall.

[stockslivevan]

I think it's better than Superman II, but that's mostly because I think that film was a total mess. You have a climatic sequence with Superman fighting three villains with his strength and at the same time you get a bunch of slapstick moments as if they were spliced out of the film AIRPLANE, and not only were they inappropriate for such a dramatic scene but they were very unfunny. Firing Richard Donner from Part II for some bloke who had no understanding or love for Superman is one of the most idiotic moments in film making.

Superman II had the potential to be a great sequel like TDK and Empire. If only they had let Donner finish the movie.

As it is, I love parts of the new Donner cut (mainly the Brando scenes) yet thought parts of the original still worked better - Clark kissing Lois at the end to make her forget everything, the way Clark reveals himself as Superman, but all the silly bits introduced by Lester ruined it overall.

Even the Donner Cut doesn't stand well as a film, but that's mostly because it's more intended to show what Donner had in mind since there was no way they could actually complete the film. It's really a shame. Lester was wrong. Given that Superman III was entirely his film shows how wrong he was. I mean what were the producers thinking? Donner gave them a gigantic hit in 1978 and they dumped him like he was trash. And their excuse for cutting all of Brando's scenes was a "creative decision"? Like Donner said in an interview, "how the f**k can you just cut off a great actor like that?".

[Dr. No]

Superman Returns was a garbage moive for many reasons. If I get the chance I’ll write up why tonight .

Superman II I remember not liking it much, but I didn’t know about the Donner cut. Could be interesting.

[FormerBondFan]

Is Superman Returns darker than Reeves films?

[stockslivevan]

Is Superman Returns darker than Reeves films?

Not really. But from the inappropriate murky cinematography and serious tone you'd be fooled into thinking it was dark.

[Kristatos]

Is Superman Returns darker than Reeves' films?

Not really. But from the inappropriate murky cinematography and serious tone you'd be fooled into thinking it was dark.

Interesting point. It has become something of a cliche that every superhero movie feels obliged to try and copy the visual tone of Tim Burton's Batman. One of the things I liked about TDK is that its opening scene took place in daylight, in a realistic-looking, non-gothicized city, thus immediately standing out from the crowd.

[FormerBondFan]

One of the things I liked about TDK is that its opening scene took place in daylight, in a realistic-looking, non-gothicized city, thus immediately standing out from the crowd.

Same here.

[stockslivevan]

I always liked this shot mimicking the first issue cover.






So anyway, I watched it again for the first time in quite awhile. The DVD transfer is horrible. From what I've heard the Blu-Ray format is the only way to watch it since the movie was actually shot in HD. I saw some screenshots of both formats for comparison and it shows a major difference. Other than that, I still like this flick. The editing of the film is what ultimately brings it down. There's so much redundancy in some scenes and shots that really don't serve a purpose. I know John Ottman had the task of composing the score AND editing duties, which is the crucial problem for this flick. In the sequel Bryan Singer should take note of that and deliver a film with faster pace. He's still a good filmmaker and I believe he can deliver a good Superman film. He should just take note of all the criticisms, work them out and give audiences a fun time.

[FormerBondFan]

The crime that created Superman: Did fatal robbery spawn Man of Steel?

By David Colton, USA TODAY
On the night of June 2, 1932, the world's first superhero was born — not on the mythical planet of Krypton but from a little-known tragedy on the streets of Cleveland.

It was Thursday night, about 8:10 p.m., and Mitchell Siegel, a Jewish immigrant from Lithuania, was in his secondhand clothing store on the near East Side. According to a police report, three men entered. One asked to see a suit of clothes and walked out without paying for it. In the commotion of the robbery, Siegel, 60, fell to the ground and died.

The police report mentions a gunshot being heard. But the coroner, the police and Siegel's wife said Siegel died of a heart attack. No one was ever arrested.

What happened next has exploded some of the longest-held beliefs about the origins of Superman and the two teenage boys, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, who invented America's best-known comic-book hero.

Past accounts suggest Siegel and Shuster, both 17, awkward and unpopular in high school, invented the meek Clark Kent and his powerful alter-ego, Superman, to attract girls and rise above their humble Cleveland beginnings.

But now it appears that the origin might have been more profound — that it was the death of Jerry Siegel's father that pushed the devastated teen to come up with the idea of a "Superman" to right all wrongs.

"In 50 years of interviews, Jerry Siegel never once mentioned that his father died in a robbery," says Brad Meltzer, a best-selling author whose novel, The Book of Lies, due Sept. 2, links the Siegel murder to a biblical conspiracy plot.

"But think about it," Meltzer says. "Your father dies in a robbery, and you invent a bulletproof man who becomes the world's greatest hero. I'm sorry, but there's a story there."

The first 'Superman'

The evidence for such a psychological underpinning is strong.

It was just a year after Mitchell Siegel's death, 1933, that writer Siegel and artist Shuster came up with "The Superman," a grim, flying avenger they tried to sell to newspaper syndicates and publishers for five years. In the oldest surviving artwork, this early Superman, whom they call "the most astounding fiction character of all time," flies to the rescue of a man who is being held up by a masked robber.

Was it Jerry's alter-ego flying to rescue his helpless father?

"America did not get Superman from our greatest legends, but because a boy lost his father," Meltzer says. "Superman came not out of our strength but out of our vulnerability."

The more Meltzer looked, the more intriguing things became. A letter published in The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer on June 3, 1932, the day after the robbery, denounces the need for vigilantes in the harsh days of the Depression. The letter is signed by an A.L. Luther.

"Is that where (Superman foe) Lex Luthor came from?" Meltzer says. "I almost had a heart attack right there. I thought, 'You have to be kidding me!' "

In search of answers

Meltzer was not the only one looking. Comic-book historian Gerard Jones first disclosed the fact of the robbery in 2004 for his book, Men of Tomorrow, after interviews with Siegel's cousins.

"It had to have an effect," Jones says. "Superman's invulnerability to bullets, loss of family, destruction of his homeland — all seem to overlap with Jerry's personal experience. There's a connection there: the loss of a dad as a source for Superman."

Although they never went public, the father's side of the family was told for decades that the elder Siegel had been shot in the robbery. That's the dramatic angle Meltzer takes in his conspiracy novel. Siegel was shot twice in the chest at his store, he writes, and "a puddle of blood seeped toward the door."

In an afterword to his work of fiction, Meltzer concedes that the facts remain murky. In an interview, Meltzer said that some in the family were told "since they were little kids" that Siegel died by gunfire. Others were told he had a heart attack. "It was probably a heart attack," Meltzer said.

And yet Meltzer is not ready to embrace either answer as final.

More definitive is Marc Tyler Nobleman, author with artist Ross MacDonald of this year's illustrated book Boys of Steel: The Creators of Superman, who concludes that Mitchell Siegel died of a heart attack during the robbery. The coroner, he notes, reported "no wounds" on Siegel's body, and the gunshot might not have been related to the robbery.

"I spent a long time going after this," Nobleman says. "I believe I have the first accurate account. Jerry's father wasn't shot and robbed. He had a heart attack during a robbery."

A fortune sold for $130

The rest of the saga of Siegel and Shuster is better known, but no less tragic. It wasn't until 1938 that the familiar red-and-blue-garbed Superman appeared on the cover of Action Comics No. 1. The creators got a check for $130. In return, DC Comics acquired rights to the character "forever."

Siegel and Shuster bristled as Superman grew in popularity — on radio, in wartime cartoons and serials in the 1940s. They went to court several times, winning settlements but never rights to the character. By the 1970s, Siegel had been working as a mail clerk for $7,000 a year, and Shuster was almost blind.

"A shameful legacy," says Blake Bell, author of The World of Steve Ditko, a biography of the co-creator of Spider-Man. Comic-book creators "had no pensions, no contracts, no health benefits, and companies didn't even pay for the artists' supplies. When these artists tried to negotiate greater rights for themselves, they were either collectively cast out or made false promises."

After hearing that Warner Bros. had paid $3 million for the rights to make Superman the Movie in 1975, Siegel and Shuster tried again to reap some benefits. This time, though, they had help from the artistic community and from fans who knew their work.

In a landmark settlement, DC Comics agreed to pay the two men $20,000 a year for life. More important, friends say, DC agreed to add "Superman created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster" on all printed and filmed material in the future.

"Having their names listed as Superman's creators was the biggest victory of all," says Steve Younis, editor of SupermanHomepage.com. "It's worth more than any kind of monetary reimbursement."

The man who helped negotiate the Siegel and Shuster deal was artist Jerry Robinson, who co-created The Joker in 1939 but who received little recognition for decades. (He's now a creative consultant for DC Comics in the wake of The Dark Knight film.)

Robinson says he threw a party in his Manhattan apartment when the Siegel and Shuster settlement was announced.

"Kurt Vonnegut, Jules Pfeiffer, Will Eisner, Eli Wallach and his wife were there," Robinson, 86, says. "Walter Cronkite came on, and they showed Superman flying, and he described what had happened. At the end, he said, 'Another triumph for truth, justice and the American way.'

"We opened Champagne. Jerry and Joe were there, and it was a very emotional moment. There wasn't a dry eye in the place."

The struggle goes on

Michael Uslan, executive producer of the six Batman movies since 1989, including The Dark Knight, says there has been a "sea change" in how corporations view comic books and their creators. "Here you have people in their 80s and 90s seeing their comic-book work being taken seriously," Uslan says. "They are deriving economic benefits now either directly or through consultancies."

Shuster died in 1992 and Siegel in 1996, but their legal battles have been never-ending. In March, a court ruled that Siegel's heirs (wife Joanne and daughter Laura) were entitled to parts of the billion-dollar Superman copyright. Because of the ongoing litigation, neither the families nor DC Comics would comment, not even about Mitchell Siegel's death 76 years ago or its implications.

But in an e-mailed response, the Siegel family did say, "It is gratifying to know people want to know about Jerry Siegel, and that he is getting recognition for his creativity."