I haven't see the movie, don't care to, I would just like to address this "too powerful" aspect that I always agreed with. Superman was born in during the Great Depression. Americans needed something to believe in, and a flawed character would not capture the essence the original creators were going for. I believe the marvel comic characters were born in the sixties, a period when kids really questioned american values and probably the ideal that this country is perfect. I'm sure kids wouldn't have wanted to buy into this "super american" ideal which superman really is.
Not to nitpick, but Superman as originally created, was a fraction of the powerhouse he is today. He was bullet proof, could outrun a train, and jump high and far, but that was about it. He was also far from the boyscout he eventually became labeled as. In one of his earliest stories, he takes it upon himself to tear down slums so the government would have to come back in and rebuild low-cost modern housing for the poor inhabitants. In the same tale, he puts himself above the law and "rescues" arrested juvenile criminals from due process citing that they were only a product of their poverty-stricken home. If anything, his original incarnation was a radical and had more in common with the modern versions of Batman and The Punisher. Though I'm not an expert in the least, just some things I've noticed from reading the original stories. Someone more versed on his history would have to shed light on that and how he came to be what he is.
SPOILER I'm against this also. As soon as the kid threw the piano I rolled my eyes. Oh boy, another superkid story line. Now that Superman has returned after being gone for 5 years doesn't he owe 5 years of child support?
Saw it last night at liked it. However, it certainly could have been better. The first 30 or so minutes I didn't care for all that much...the part with the plane - cool at first but ended so horribly wrong. Spacey did a great job, as did Parker Posey.
I just saw it Did not like it. . . It was not that I hated it but I didn't like it It was slow and kind of boring the end was way drawn out and over done QUESTION: If I remember Superman II correctly . . . . Lois *knew* Clark was Superman in this movie she doesn't seem to know [In fact when the lil man was conceived he was in human form and had to go back to the fortress to get his powers back] I guess I see why Cyclops had so little part in X-Men 3 Rocket River
Same here, the beginning was slow... and since I've only seen the first Superman I was a little confused too. The story line was too perdictable... other DC Comic movies have been much better like Spiderman and X-Men but this one was still good. One of the trailers was Spiderman 3, it looked awesome!
Spiderman and X-Men are Marvel, not DC. It was a decent movie, plot was predictable, effects were solid, but really nothing special. I wasn't that impressed. And the new guy is no Christopher Reeve.
Saw it last night as well. Spoiler Lois must be one confused individual. She slept with Superman and then had her memory erased. Then, she has Superkid. So, when does she think she slept with Superman or what does she think happened? Since her memory was wiped, she should still only have a crush on him that didn't materialize. She needs to check herself into a psych ward. Superman's a rapist and a mindf*cker.
I watched it when it came out in theaters. I thought it was okay, but it didn't really grab me. Maybe I'm tired of the whole Superman mythology.
Really don't get all the hate. It's a solid film and a great start to renewing the franchise. Certainly it can't beat I and II but its head and shoulders above III and IV. I saw it listed as one of the worst movies of '06 over at Darkhorizons and I found that preposterous. Mabye it's a little slow in places and some scenes and dialouge are a little rough but it's far from a bad film...much better than X3.
i thought Lois was miscast and Brandon Routh didn't really engage me as Superman. plus, i thought the whole "new continent" was totally stupid.
I dunno if I already posted this earlier in this thread, but what really bothered me about this movie was that Superman's problems with Lex at the end could have been easily avoided and solved by a couple of armed cops with a helicopter. If he's SUPERman, let's please have a problem that only he can solve, not some half-brained childish plan by the overused Lex Luthor. The next flick's gonna seriously need some actual damn character development and a competent villain (more modern Luthor, Darkseid, Brainiac, anybody actually threatening...) to get my money. God, I miss the DCAU.
Well he did save the space shuttle and that 777 from crashing to a fiery death. He did avert a bank robbery and save to guards from being torn up by a gatling gun. He did save hundreds of live on the streets of Metrolis when the quake rippled through the city. He also saved Lois, Richard and son from a drowning death and pretty much saved the entire east coast from extinction by sending the island lex created out into space. As for Lex himself, true armed forces in helicopters or airstrikes could have taken Lex out...but by the time they could have actually located him on the island it might've been to late. Superman could get out there in a fraction of the time. ...Superman's not really my favorite superhero just because he's impervious to everything but kryptonite, which makes him a little too powerful. But I felt the movie sustained my interest and emotional involvement well enough.
True, he did do all of that, as he does in all of his incarnations, but the main conflict at the end, what ended up putting him near death and all at the climax of the movie, was just a letdown. Do you deny that Lex's plan was entirely childish and idiotic? Were you able to actually take it seriously and give Lex any credibility as a villain? I mean, even the ******* Joker comes up with more functional schemes.
