The Superman Films: Were they ever really great?

[tacticslion]

Okay, yes, I know: Donner's film is a classic 'standard' of acting* and film-making... but, uh, really... the story-telling was a bit iffy. With that extra Deus Ex' at the end is... kind of lame.

Let me get this out of the way: I will love these films. [i]LOVE[i] them. (But not physically: 1) ew, gross; 2) the DVDs will likely stop working well.)

Then the sequel, II, was pretty amazing... but Supes was kind of dumb. And the bad guys even more so (making the man in blue look good by default).

The next one - III - was literally nothing but a joke. Pryor's obvious comedic skill aside, it was awful and out of character from top to bottom.

The fourth... well... uh... it tried to do something, I guess. It failed spectacularly, but I remember it fondly nonetheless.

Then come those that I've heard the most complaints about: 'Returns and 'Steel.

'Returns had a single, major and abiding flaw: the cast was attempting to follow the Reeves films. Now, let me be clear - literally just accepting the first two as continuity, and the rest as non-canon, is actually pretty brilliant. And, in terms of story-telling, it makes an awful lot of sense. What bothers me, is the age of the actors and the seemingly out-of-character decisions, both in Clark and Lois.
... thhhhhaaaaaat said, I can't really find any other flaws in it, once those two elements of the premise are accepted - at least, no flaw beyond what the original two films had. It's not a "great" movie... but the film-making, and acting (especially Spacey) is actually pretty solid. The writing is actually tighter and clearer than either of the "prequels" (is that the right term?) it's based on. I wish 'Returns wasn't quite as "dark" (though it's pretty far from "grim"), but again, that's less an error and more of a design choice that's doesn't fully align with my preferences.

And, I'll just say now, Man of Steel wasn't a bad film. In fact, I'd say it was pretty good. I didn't like Pa Kent - he was kind of stupid, I'd say - but it was otherwise enjoyable, and I can see what they were going for with Pa, even if I think he was handled poorly. Again, beyond that, I don't think there was much to genuinely complain about. Much is made of the collateral for Superman's battle - specifically, he's called out as being foolish for fighting within the city. I don't agree - I don't think he had much choice: either he fought Zod and allowed him to kill people, or he worked hard at stopping him... he chose the latter. He didn't have that much choice of where it was going to take place. Heck, as much as I do fault him for taking time to kiss Lois... it actually makes a lot of sense. This is a young guy, learning how to be a hero (against his father's wishes) being genuinely extroverted for what is more or less the first time in his life. He's just got what amounts to his first kiss from a beautiful girl who's probably the first one to "know" him beyond his parents. (Incidentally: killing Zod wasn't just a good idea, it was necessary; arguing about whether or not that one guy could get out of the way is weird - sure, but he has no freaking clue what that effect is or what's going on.)

I dunno. It just seems like the films that were hailed as "amazing" don't quite live up to that standard, while those who are derided aren't as bad as they're made out to be.

What do you guys think?

* Brando, Reeves, Kidder, and the rest. Amazing cast.

[Bum Bill Bee]

I thought the first one was lame, particularily with Lois' poetry attempt going on through her head. Though at least Luthor's fantastic real-estate plot threatened millions of lives.

Loved the Second one!

The third one, yeah it was pretty lame and silly, but I liked some of Gus Gorman's (Pyror) bits. And the Clark Kent vs. Douche Superman was a good idea.

With Superman Returns, I liked how Lex Luthor was less campy and more menacing, but his plan with the huge crystal island didn't make a lick of sense. And, yeah I didn't like anything else really.


I didn't see any of the others. Maybe its for the best?

[Bard The 5th LW]

I didn't like Man of Steel at all. Poor storytelling - a lot of stuff was poorly explained/didn't make much sense, and it was also just boring due to all the time it spent on backstory.

[Flarecobra]

Some are, some aren't. Which is which is up to your interperation.

[tacticslion]

EDIT: By the by: though I disagree within this post, it is not with the intention or purpose of shouting people down - it is simply for the purpose of clarifying and explaining my own view, which, apparently, differs. But that's okay! I'm interested in hearing others' views!

Originally Posted by Bum Bill Bee

I thought the first one was lame, particularily with Lois' poetry attempt going on through her head. Though at least Luthor's fantastic real-estate plot threatened millions of lives.

Yeah... Lois was kind of silly... but so was the whole film. Lois' questions and thoughts did make sense in-character, however, cheesy as they were.

Luthor's plot was... hilariously bad. Awesome, mind you, but hilariously bad.

Originally Posted by Bum Bill Bee

Loved the Second one!

Can't argue with that - so do I! Supes made terrible decisions, but, you know... that's how it goes in films.

Originally Posted by Bum Bill Bee

The third one, yeah it was pretty lame and silly, but I liked some of Gus Gorman's (Pyror) bits. And the Clark Kent vs. Douche Superman was a good idea.

Great idea, well-acted, poorly realized, and saddled with a whole bunch of dreck. Dag-gum was that a terrible film plot.

Pryor's comedy is really good - he's great - but... it's in the wrong film. They could've made a great Pryor film, or a great Superman film... instead, we got a terrible film with bits of great acting and lots of wasted potential.

Originally Posted by Bum Bill Bee

With Superman Returns, I liked how Lex Luthor was less campy and more menacing, but his plan with the huge crystal island didn't make a lick of sense. And, yeah I didn't like anything else really.

Hah! I... actually disagree. I think Lex's plot made a lot of sense... at least just as much as the S1 (and an awful lot more sense than the S3 and S4 plots*).

The "science" behind it is ludicrous... but so is the "science" behind most of Lex's plots, considering the comics they come from.

The vague gist is based in reality, and the ever-expanding water-based super-tech is pretty much exactly what we saw in the first four films. He just weaponized it. I find that entirely reasonable (for a Super Villain). He even took steps to Superman-proof it!

... it just didn't work. Because Superman.

Of particular note, the film was supposed to have a sequel in which the island became a pretty large and important part as a MacGuffin... it just never materialized because Warner was disappointed with their profit margin (despite all signs pointing to that film being a rather large success - apparently they wanted $100 mil. more than they got, internationally). Effectively, their internal debate on whether or not to once again triple their money more or less let the time run out on various contracts, despite several people being rather for the whole thing.

* Only S4 was Lex's, to be fair to "movie him" or whatever.

Originally Posted by Bum Bill Bee

I didn't see any of the others. Maybe its for the best?

Hah! S4 is one of the best, worst, bad movies you'll see. It's... basically a waste of time. Knowing that, you get to see Gene Hackman back as Lex, Reeves as Supes, and Kidder as Lane, Cooper as White, and all (well, most) of the rest of that amazing cast again. It's heavy-handed, preachy, and has a budget of 22-24 million dollars less than previous film (and made four years later - it was made nine years after the first film, and had a budget of 40 million dollars less!).

Anyway, it sucks. If you really want to see all of Superman, feel free. It's a bad movie with an amazing cast.

Man of Steel is... well, by some it's outright reviled because of the collateral damage Supes does and (spoiler-alert!) when he defeats the bad-guy, he snaps Zod's neck, which is "un-Superman-like" or something. I don't know. Seemed like a totally reasonable action to take when you have a military-trained monster attempting to kill innocent people who has verbally sworn he will not stop (and just tried to kill everyone on the planet just a minute ago).

To me, it was impressive that Supes tried to talk him out of it, first. That was nice of him.

(There's also some folk who are bothered by the product placement. I get that. But for me... I dunno. The fact that there was a massive Sears store, Banks with names that I recognize, and others within the film made it feel more like a real world than distracting product placement. Heck, seeing them shredded the way they were, is kind of fun.)

I would recommend, it, but it's clearly not for everyone. It lacks most of the light-hearted elements of the previous films.

---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

Hah! That "Danger Will Robinson" thing is still neat.
(I put that here, because any title I write will disappear.)

Originally Posted by Bard The 5th LW

I didn't like Man of Steel at all. Poor storytelling - a lot of stuff was poorly explained/didn't make much sense, and it was also just boring due to all the time it spent on backstory.

... I can see that... again, I just didn't get that vibe from it. I think what it is, more than poor telling, is purposefully disjointed telling. It's a narrative style that just doesn't work for some people. Having watched lots of weird anime and read lots of disjointed-narrative books, it makes a heck'v'a-lot more sense to me than most, I'd imagine.

That said, while I personally disagree, I could see that as a criticism.

Originally Posted by Flarecobra

Some are, some aren't. Which is which is up to your interperation.

Which ones do you think? I'd be really interested in hearing what your opinions are, whether we agree or not!

[MSperoni]

I've yet to be particularly impressed by any of the Superman films I've seen.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by MSperoni

I've yet to be particularly impressed by any of the Superman films I've seen.

Did you grow up with any of them, or come to them late in life?

Were you a fan of the comics or character before, or not really?

For myself, I was always a nominal fan. I loved SUPERMAN, but never particularly followed the comics. Those were mostly incidental to my like thereof. I watched some of the old serials, some of the cartoons, the comics, and some of the other tv shows (mostly older).

Before viewing Batman (the late 80s film), Supes was by far my favorite of the two. That switched around, not after the film, but after the cartoon series (which was amazing by the way).

Thereafter, even through the rotten films, Batman was the clear "winner" of my favorites... but in the comics, it was always Marvel comics (despite some of their really weird design decisions), especially X-Men and Spiderman (and I am still a fan of the Clone Saga, despite recognizing how much damage that did to the franchise).

Anyway, I say all of that to explain: while I love and have loved the idea of Superman, I guess I've never been as much of a true fan of "the character" as portrayed in the comics - I guess I've always just had the generally distilled image of who he was through various other media elements. And I genuinely hold a deep-seated affection for that image.

Didn't realize that before this post. Huh.

So anyway, that may affect my views.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by MSperoni

I've yet to be particularly impressed by any of the Superman films I've seen.

I second this sentiment. The early films were, ok. Not fantastic but I watchable. After that though, I dont think I've ever actually seen one of them all the way through after 2, if I did it was so dull I dont remember.

Incidentally on Man of Steel, the big issue wasn't that collateral damage happened, it was the lack of acknowledgement. You dont see Superman at any point hesitate, or voice concern, or make an attempt to move the fight.

In its defense this seems to be an issue with superhero moves over all

[Bard The 5th LW]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

I second this sentiment. The early films were, ok. Not fantastic but I watchable. After that though, I dont think I've ever actually seen one of them all the way through after 2, if I did it was so dull I dont remember.

Incidentally on Man of Steel, the big issue wasn't that collateral damage happened, it was the lack of acknowledgement. You dont see Superman at any point hesitate, or voice concern, or make an attempt to move the fight.

In its defense this seems to be an issue with superhero moves over all

This right here is the major thing. Superman and Zod basically seemed equally disinterested in all the havoc they caused. I honestly felt like Godzilla would make for a more sympathetic hero.

The problem with the flashbacks was that EVERYONE knows Superman's backstory - its a waste to devote as much time to it as they did. There are flashbacks still happening an hour into the movie. It just dragged things out and made me question the film's act structure.

The death of Clark's dad was also an especially pointless scene. Why couldn't Clark have saved the stupid dog? If he just ran up and like, used his super legs or something to stay to the ground, and ran away, no one would've been like "HE'S A FUCKING ALIEN." they would just have been like "That was ridiculously lucky, don't do that ever again!" And even if the residents of Kansas are always on the lookout for extraterrestrials among them, why did ANYONE have to run out to save that dog in a situation that obviously meant death for them?

The flashbacks on the whole didn't make much sense, dragged out the run time, and took away from scenes that could have characterized Clark IN THE PRESENT. Watching that movie, I know that Clark Kent was a scared child and a confused teenager once, but that's about it - I felt like I knew nothing about him in the film's modern day. He was just a blank face who happened to have super strength.

I guess the scene where Zod revealed himself to humanity was pretty neat for what its worth.

[Amake]

As a lifelong fan of the comic book medium and the Superman character, I've always found the movies disappointing. Their foremost distinguishing feature to my mind is showing just how hard it is to make superheroes work in live action movies, and what poor quality movies need to achieve to impress audiences on a scale I can only describe as envious.

Yeah, it's not exactly fair to compare movies to comics, but I just don't see the appeal. Why waste your time on the pre-chewed bacon-flavored gum of Man of Steel when you've got a whole pig called All-Star Superman sitting right there?