If only superman were truly an epic.
The Man of Steel.
- Thread starter Espy
- Start date
- Status
Covar = Pontius Pilate. Guilt mostly.
I'm just wondering if it's an overraction based on religious beliefs, IE "how dare you compare a fictional character to our lord and savior".[DOUBLEPOST=1355340227][/DOUBLEPOST]I have to admit that most of my favorite Superman stories are ones in which Superman himself isn't even present for most of the story and deals more with other people's situations around him. For example "The man who has everything" and the death and return of Superman.
Reread his posts on the previous page where he shows significant differences between the two that might give you insight into your question.
I have read them, however, they ignore the fact the death and return of Superman storylines which are most definately a jesus metaphor. As has already been stated, religion and mythology comparisons are strong in all facets of the superhero genre.
Also, as previously stated he's not JUST a jesus metaphor, he's a metaphor of multiple mythological beings besides just jesus.
Just to expand on the death and return as a jesus metaphor. He literally dies, confronts satan in hell (Blaze) and is ressurected.
Also, as previously stated he's not JUST a jesus metaphor, he's a metaphor of multiple mythological beings besides just jesus.
Just to expand on the death and return as a jesus metaphor. He literally dies, confronts satan in hell (Blaze) and is ressurected.
Since 1971. Which is actually the most important piece here - it was written at the height of Superman's supers and at a time when (so far as I know) comic writers couldn't do much more than hint at suggesting that their heroes might have a sex life. And, so far as I can find, it was intended as satirical.
No assumption - he literally tells Chloe that he's developed better control and can freely make with the sex in season nine or so. Directly related to him schtupping her cousin Lois Lane, awkwardly enough.
Well he had let Chloe know that it would have been dangerous to Lana Lang for them to shtupp... So when he started shtupping Lois Lane, he had to ease her mind.
I'm fairly sure the Death/Return story wasn't a metaphor so much as a cash-grab.
The two arent mutually exclusive.
Timing issue actually. They wanted the wedding to sync up with the wedding in Lois & Clark.
Now the Jesus comparison a very forced metaphor whose links are weak at even the most superficial level. I hate it because the attempt to make it is responsible for a far to high amount of shitty Superman stories as well as being the reason you have people who insist that Superman is too boring and perfect.
If you haven't read the New 52 Aquaman, you should. He and Mera are crazy badass, and the first issue or two he deals with people in the DC Universe who think he's a joke hero. The book does a great job of dispelling some stupid jokes like "talking to fish" and such.
I have, actually, and quite recently. It was fantastic. It was like the old Geoff Johns that I knew and loved; the one that wrote the amazing run on Flash some years back.
God I love me Johns's Flash run. TO THE PIRATEBAY!
So, basically, you don't like the metaphor, not that you deny it exists.Timing issue actually. They wanted the wedding to sync up with the wedding in Lois & Clark.
Now the Jesus comparison a very forced metaphor whose links are weak at even the most superficial level. I hate it because the attempt to make it is responsible for a far to high amount of shitty Superman stories as well as being the reason you have people who insist that Superman is too boring and perfect.
At his core, he's the savior of humanity. In a nutshell, that's the basic comparison.
As for Aquaman being lame, I'm fairly certain it's only people who's only exposure to him was through the Super Friends cartoon that ever thought that.
It's the first time I've looked forward to DC releases in a very long time. I was really surprised how much I enjoyed it. Hell, they made Black Manta interesting, even.
Superman is totally Space Jesus, created by a Jewish guy.
Also this:
Also this:
Wait, I missed that, who said Superman Returns was a good movie?
LOOK: I love Superman. I fucking tear up when I hear the John Williams theme. I was the ultimate Superman Returns apologist. My brain twisted itself into a pretzel trying to find ways to say the movie was good for at least a year or two after it came out.
But it's not. It's really a horrible, horrible movie for so many reasons.
LOOK: I love Superman. I fucking tear up when I hear the John Williams theme. I was the ultimate Superman Returns apologist. My brain twisted itself into a pretzel trying to find ways to say the movie was good for at least a year or two after it came out.
But it's not. It's really a horrible, horrible movie for so many reasons.
BananaHands
Staff member
Superbeard.
Did someone page me?
I did, and included more of an explanation why. I have no reservations saying that it was good...to me. I know that I'm in the minority with that opinion and I'm OK with that.
The unfortunate thing is, Superman Returns suffers from over-hype and over-expectation. People went in expecting cinematic gold based on nostalgia from the first two Superman movies, the Superman animated series, and whatever else they watched. They went in expecting Bryan Singer to do to Superman what he did with X-Men.
Few, if any, modern movies can hold up to the hype of the internet, and Superman Returns definitely suffered because of that. Case in point...The Hobbit. Plenty of people are expecting something incredible, but the initial reviews are indicating that it's not. People work themselves into a frenzy over a movie and blow their disappointment out of proportion instead of objectively realizing that it's as much their fault as anything. Add this on top of creating a movie around a god-like character and you have a pretty big hill to climb.
I went into Superman Returns with little expectation. I've been doing this with movies since I hated the second Matrix movie when I first watched it. I'm going to do it with the Hobbit. If you watch Superman Returns for what it is and without the blinders of Superman comics/cartoons on, you see that it's not a bad flick at all.
Now, that isn't to say that it's without flaws because the last bit of the movie is pretty terrible, but that has more to do with the trouble writers face when trying to challenge Superman. It's not in my top 20 or even 30, but it's one I own and I'm not ashamed of that.
No Superman Returns suffered from a director jacking off to a 1976 movie he watched as a kid. There is no amount of over-hype that resulted in Superman being a horrible person, deadbeat father, and and stalker, or for Lois Lane to be the world's biggest idiot (Although Richard White might hold that title in the movie for believing her, but at least he was the only upstanding person in the movie). Likewise expecting large swaths of the movie to not be shot for shot reproductions of the Richard Donner films is not unreasonable.
Superman Returns suffered because it's a terrible movie that tries to hard to reproduce a movie that was made in the 70s and what original stuff is in the movie is absolutely horrifying, illogical, and inconsistent.
Superman Returns suffered because it's a terrible movie that tries to hard to reproduce a movie that was made in the 70s and what original stuff is in the movie is absolutely horrifying, illogical, and inconsistent.
Oh, it had some awesome moments. The space shuttle scene was fantastic. The guy LOOKED great. The movie LOOKED great. No doubts about that.
YES.
The problem, in my opinion, was not hype, it was that it was a terrible movie, with a terrible Superman (seriously, he was not a good person here. Superman isn't a deadbeat creep of a dad, WTF?) and awesome effects and a fun performance by Spacy and a few others. Superman Returns had some great ingredients and it should have been a really tasty cake when it finished baking, instead it had some fantastic frosting but it was dry and stale and it left a bad taste in most peoples mouths.
fade
Staff member
I'm interested in this movie. I would love to see a modern take on the character. The Donner movies were fun, but they were live action cartoons. And I don't mean post-Batman:TAS cartoons. Nothing wrong with that (and I side with Nick--Reeves was excellent, and convinced me that Kent and Supes were two different people). I want to see some character exploration. Maybe some exploration and discovery of his physical powers, too. Some emotion. Maybe a little less of the overdone "outsider looking in" bit. But, I really hope they leave his squeaky-clean morals intact. Please don't make him edgy or "dark". That's what makes superman superman.
Returns suffered from the director and writers taking a distinct turn away from "boy scout" superman. They don't merely want to continue the series, they want to redefine what he is.
Yes, the deadbeat dad, stalking, and a few other things don't quite mesh with what humans are expected to do, but he appears to be struggling with who he is, and what his role on earth is. How is it fair that his parents and planet died, but this planet now has a protector? Why him? He experienced love, but once he realized he was going to have a child he suddenly started questioning everything, and rather than leave her with the knowledge that he gave her a baby and left, he chose to erase her memory.
Is that the appropriate response? Who knows - he's an alien. One that has been raised in our society with all-american values and understanding, but it appears he's having his mid life crisis a bit early.
I think the answer to "I don't like superman because he is perfect and all powerful" is "what if he made some regrettable decisions? What if he had to struggle with the loneliness of being alien from your adoptive parents and their entire race?"
I don't know if it's the right direction to take, but it's certainly an interesting one.
He is supposed to be creepy. We are supposed to see him as an alien. He's a scared, lost child, and while he seems to have a calling in life, is this what his entire existence is for? Could he possibly be happy as a human with Lois and a child? Is there something more for him that's just out of reach? Are there limits to his power - either real or imagined, and are there limits to his love for humanity? Obviously he's aware of all the injustice that humans are inflicting on each other, he can't save even a small fraction of children from child abuse, etc.
I haven't read the comics, but my expectation is that the comic stories were a lot more involved and interesting than the simple, obvious stories that had little depth which hit the silverscreen in the eighties. Those movies aren't bad, but it wasn't much more than cowboys and indians with a superpowered sheriff.
Yes, the deadbeat dad, stalking, and a few other things don't quite mesh with what humans are expected to do, but he appears to be struggling with who he is, and what his role on earth is. How is it fair that his parents and planet died, but this planet now has a protector? Why him? He experienced love, but once he realized he was going to have a child he suddenly started questioning everything, and rather than leave her with the knowledge that he gave her a baby and left, he chose to erase her memory.
Is that the appropriate response? Who knows - he's an alien. One that has been raised in our society with all-american values and understanding, but it appears he's having his mid life crisis a bit early.
I think the answer to "I don't like superman because he is perfect and all powerful" is "what if he made some regrettable decisions? What if he had to struggle with the loneliness of being alien from your adoptive parents and their entire race?"
I don't know if it's the right direction to take, but it's certainly an interesting one.
He is supposed to be creepy. We are supposed to see him as an alien. He's a scared, lost child, and while he seems to have a calling in life, is this what his entire existence is for? Could he possibly be happy as a human with Lois and a child? Is there something more for him that's just out of reach? Are there limits to his power - either real or imagined, and are there limits to his love for humanity? Obviously he's aware of all the injustice that humans are inflicting on each other, he can't save even a small fraction of children from child abuse, etc.
I haven't read the comics, but my expectation is that the comic stories were a lot more involved and interesting than the simple, obvious stories that had little depth which hit the silverscreen in the eighties. Those movies aren't bad, but it wasn't much more than cowboys and indians with a superpowered sheriff.
I wouldn't confuse people being critical of a movie with "raging", I think thats just a way to dismiss actual critique.
Superman Returns, from a basic filmmaking standpoint, had serious issues. An unlikable protagonist (this was the biggest issue, if you don't like the protagonist then you probably won't like the movie and Supes came off as weird and creepy to people), a boring and meandering plot with little clarity, the villian was a chunk of land.
It also had some strong things going for it: Amazing VFX work (seriously, whoa), fantastic sets and costumes, Kevin Spacey.
Superman Returns, from a basic filmmaking standpoint, had serious issues. An unlikable protagonist (this was the biggest issue, if you don't like the protagonist then you probably won't like the movie and Supes came off as weird and creepy to people), a boring and meandering plot with little clarity, the villian was a chunk of land.
It also had some strong things going for it: Amazing VFX work (seriously, whoa), fantastic sets and costumes, Kevin Spacey.
And again, someone gets it exactly. It's a matter of grinding against how you tell a story.
- Status