Missy Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 Here's a teaser quote from the forthcoming episode: Mike: No, Superman. Suck it up and go punch someone in the frickin face! Jenny: Agh! He wouldn't do that! Mike: SUPERMAN PUNCHES PEOPLE IN THE FACE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kariyanine Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 Mike, Great episode. I understand how you feel about the wholesomeness (not even sure that is a word) of Superman but the movie is PG-13, so this film isn't targeted to the "younger" crowd (although you would think Superman.... kids... perfect combo but Warner Bros and Singer didn't go that way) and it seemed like Singer was trying to show a humanity that Superman isn't normally protrayed with. Superman is a god except for one thing and that is his emotions and I thought Singer did a great job of making Clark/Superman feel human to the audience (the drink with Jimmy, the creepy stalking scene, the almost reveal of Clark as Superman). My main problem with Superman has always been that Superman is too godlike, I thought Singer made it so we were able to relate to him on at least some level. And Jenny, Cyclops is boring. He sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted July 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 True. But the PG-13 rating is for "some intense action violence." Not language or sex or gore or anything that would scare (most) parents off. And the "intense action" wasn't too over-the-top for kids. So Warner Bros. knew that parents would bring their children, and they have a responsibility to make Superman appear as wholesome as possible. I'm sorry, but showing kids that it's okay to drink away your sorrows and spy on an ex lover is far, far from acceptable. Especially for Superman; it's the opposite of everything he represents. Instead of writing a Superman story, at times it felt like Singer and his crew simply dropped Superman into a preexisting, generic superhero script. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kscriv Posted July 8, 2006 Report Share Posted July 8, 2006 Well my piece I must say wasn't too great, but as stated it was done at like 2AM after driving 90 minutes back from the city and being retardedly tired, so kindy sorry about that, and my ending sequence till the end. I liked up to the point he fell, then it went downhill. Good episode overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted July 9, 2006 Report Share Posted July 9, 2006 If I was to describe Superman Returns in one word: lacklustre. Or how about: predictable? I liked it. Kevin Spacey was brilliant and really chewed up the screen time that he had but Routh was wooden (let's face it, not chosen for his acting chops) and Bosworth was just plain annoying. Kal Penn, a great comedic actor, had no lines. He was simply there to show that no matter how evil Luthor is he isn't racist in his henchmen hiring practices. By the way, he was the only non-white person in the entire movie as far as I could tell. Is Metropolis that whitebread? Say what you like about Superman III but at least it starred Richard Pryor. I know that this was a set-up but i wanted more danger. I want Luthor to come back and build a 60-storey robot or, better yet, use the blood on the kryptonite shard to clone a monster like Doomsday for the second movie. I really just wish they'd use Kevin Smith's script instead of the one they did. It was a Superman movie but fell into mediocrity somewhere between the greatness of Superman II and III. 4/10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 By the way, thanks for the mention and the kind words about the story idea. I only hope you aren't let down when you get to read the actual story. For a six page origin story/set-up story I'm pretty proud of it. On the other Superman comments: I forgot to mention Supes drinking reminded me of the piss-poor drunken evil Superman from Superman III. The spying thing? You're right, totally not Superman. Batman maybe but not Superman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mguy1977 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Superman doesnt age because his birthday is Feb 29th, leap day, in the comics. I am also guessing his powers keep the man of steel young. But I do agree a child "ages" Superman regardless. Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthSkeptical Posted August 29, 2006 Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 True. But the PG-13 rating is for "some intense action violence." Not language or sex or gore or anything that would scare (most) parents off. And the "intense action" wasn't too over-the-top for kids. So Warner Bros. knew that parents would bring their children, and they have a responsibility to make Superman appear as wholesome as possible. I'm sorry, but showing kids that it's okay to drink away your sorrows and spy on an ex lover is far, far from acceptable. Especially for Superman; it's the opposite of everything he represents. Instead of writing a Superman story, at times it felt like Singer and his crew simply dropped Superman into a preexisting, generic superhero script. Heh, the Curt Swan/Mort Weisinger Superman certainly did use his powers to spy on others for purely personal reasons. One easy example I can think of: Insofar as the context of the film, though, I thought it was entirely appropriate. He wasn't a voyeur. He was trying to figure out what his reaction to the news of Lois' new relationship should be. If it was sufficiently serious then he would back off and let it run its course. He wanted, I thought, to know if she were happy. If so, then he seemed perfectly prepared to bow out gracefully. Putting an ex-lover's happiness ahead of your own because you love them is one valid definition of heroism. And Clark didn't "drink away his sorrows" in the film. He had one drink. Do we seriously imagine with his physiology that a drink really has the same intoxicating effect as it does for humans? He was just being Jimmy Olsen's pal, making the young photographer feel at ease in a social situation. Are you similarly offended by Chris Reeve's champagne-before-premarital-sex in Superman II? Being a hero doesn't mean you forego the social conventions of the society you protect. The very essence of the Superman character is the dance he does between being human and yet not being human. People make the mistake all the time of believing he should be "better than us" when really he's just a "better version of us". If we wanted to get really deep into the psyche of Superman, I really do think he's probably not living his life the way Jor-El would have wanted. I think Jor-El would have actually preferred him a god. But the fact he doesn't believe himself a god is rather precisely what puts him in direct opposition to Luthor, and what makes Luthor's vision of Superman so warped. He's a man with the power of a god, and the writers that have understood that have generally given us the best Superman stories. It's the ones who believe him perfect, or at the very least a guy burdened by his reponsibility to "set an example", that have led us into the more unreadable parts of the Superman canon. I don't want Superman to be a god. I just want him to be good. This Singer and Routh delivered in abundance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted August 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 Insofar as the context of the film, though, I thought it was entirely appropriate. He wasn't a voyeur. He was trying to figure out what his reaction to the news of Lois' new relationship should be. If it was sufficiently serious then he would back off and let it run its course. He wanted, I thought, to know if she were happy. If so, then he seemed perfectly prepared to bow out gracefully. Putting an ex-lover's happiness ahead of your own because you love them is one valid definition of heroism. That doesn't hold water. He saw she was happy, but still tried to sweep her off her feet (RE: flying over the city, attempting to kiss her). Superman, in the moment outside of the Lane-White household, was the brooding ex-lover hiding in the bushes. And Clark didn't "drink away his sorrows" in the film. He had one drink. Do we seriously imagine with his physiology that a drink really has the same intoxicating effect as it does for humans? He was just being Jimmy Olsen's pal, making the young photographer feel at ease in a social situation. Are you similarly offended by Chris Reeve's champagne-before-premarital-sex in Superman II? The "champagne-before-premarital-sex" scene is a grey area for me. I believe Superman shouldn't drink. Ever. However, in that case, he was no longer Superman and it was a social drink. Which is okay in moderation. That's actually a good thing for kids to see; it shows them how to drink responsibly. In the bar with Jimmy, however, not so much. One drink or a hundred, Clark was having a beer to wash away the painful knowledge that he let Lois go. I don't care if it makes him drunk or not, that is showing children worldwide that it's okay to have a drink to forget your pain. Superman is an idol for millions of children, and should never be shown wallowing in the bottom of a bottle. Being a hero doesn't mean you forego the social conventions of the society you protect. The very essence of the Superman character is the dance he does between being human and yet not being human. People make the mistake all the time of believing he should be "better than us" when really he's just a "better version of us". As a godlike figure, he should be better than us. He should set an example we can all follow. If we wanted to get really deep into the psyche of Superman, I really do think he's probably not living his life the way Jor-El would have wanted. I think Jor-El would have actually preferred him a god. But the fact he doesn't believe himself a god is rather precisely what puts him in direct opposition to Luthor, and what makes Luthor's vision of Superman so warped. I agree, at least when it comes to the movie Jor-El. He wanted his son to usher Earth into a new, peaceful era, and the best way to do that is as its savior. However, what Jor-El didn't account for was Kal-El being raised by humble farmers who would teach the boy what it means to be human. Hence, the tough spot Superman is in. Is he Kal-El of Krypton, bestowed with superpowers and sent to Earth to be its guiding light? Or is he Clark Kent of Smallville, a farmer turned reporter who can never get the girl? Though I'm not a huge fan of the Superman comic books, that right there is what I like about the character; the tug of war between his two destinies (RE: savior or human) created Superman, a being that's both a god and a man. When that is written into his personality, I read 'em. When it's not, I don't because it means the writers don't have a solid grasp on the character. He's a man with the power of a god, and the writers that have understood that have generally given us the best Superman stories. It's the ones who believe him perfect, or at the very least a guy burdened by his reponsibility to "set an example", that have led us into the more unreadable parts of the Superman canon. See though, he is burdened by his responsibilities. Though he wants to save the world and set an example, he also wants people to help themselves. Seeing all of these people relying on him and his caped ilk has to be frustrating. But he's a hero, so he goes out there and helps nonetheless -- despite the fact that it kills his human life. While this frustration shouldn't be shown in every issue, having it boil to the surface from time to time is important to the character. Everyone becomes overburdened by their job, even Superman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJRogers Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Excuse me for dragging this from the wayback machine, but I'm listening to it this morning, and I don't know if anyone corrected you Mike, but apparantly DC had plans to marry Clark & Lois back in the early 1990s. And it was because of the start of production of Lois & Clark, remember they were both single when that show started, that they had to scrap the whole marriage plans. So they went with the Death Of Superman/Return of Superman story arc instead. I'm sure there are places on the net that would explain this, but I heard about this on a Superman historian's podcast (Michael Bailey's Views From The Longbox) in 2007 on the anniversary of Superman # 75. Eventually of course the two continuities would match up, but DC did plan to do it before the show was in production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DCAUFan1051 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Excuse me for dragging this from the wayback machine, but I'm listening to it this morning, and I don't know if anyone corrected you Mike, but apparantly DC had plans to marry Clark & Lois back in the early 1990s. And it was because of the start of production of Lois & Clark, remember they were both single when that show started, that they had to scrap the whole marriage plans. So they went with the Death Of Superman/Return of Superman story arc instead. I'm sure there are places on the net that would explain this, but I heard about this on a Superman historian's podcast (Michael Bailey's Views From The Longbox) in 2007 on the anniversary of Superman # 75. Eventually of course the two continuities would match up, but DC did plan to do it before the show was in production. yeah we've brought this up before I think when I was talking about L&C in the What Are You Watching & Enjoying Thread. Mike probably knows about the differences. When I was scanning through the mainpage on the forums I was like wait what someone posted in Episode 39? I don't even think I remember 39 now I have to go back and listen ugh thanks Steve! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJRogers Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 yeah we've brought this up before I think when I was talking about L&C in the What Are You Watching & Enjoying Thread. Mike probably knows about the differences. When I was scanning through the mainpage on the forums I was like wait what someone posted in Episode 39? I don't even think I remember 39 now I have to go back and listen ugh thanks Steve! HA! Hey it was a decent podcast. No head banging, despite some gnashing of teeth Mike does about Superman Returns in other podcasts he didn't go crazy ranting the way he does on the Burton Batman reviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DCAUFan1051 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 I so need to pull episode 266 up and rip that abuse of the desk! Mike: do you still edit for popmatters? just curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.