superman returns reruns

have you seen it? have you seen it? have you seen it? didja love it? didja love it? didja love it?

me neither. (warning: mild rant ahead.)

first off, what’s with the part-time 3-d imax? either pay the bucks to make it all 3-d, or just don’t bother and let me watch the movie on that big imax screen, and maybe just digitally enhance it like they did with batman begins. what’s really annoying is to have to watch out for the green flashing glasses symbol that lets you know to put on your glasses, and then realize later that you missed the brief RED flashing glasses symbol that told you to take them back off because they didn’t want you to watch people talk in 3-d. it ended up being distracting and kind of cheesy, like some cheap 50’s effect. or like the 3-d movies on “monster chiller horror theatre” from sctv.

secondly, when did richard donner’s ‘78 version of superman become the BEST MOVIE EVER? i understand nostalgia and i understand homage, but if you’re not going to even do anything new in terms of visual style or casting or acting, then why even make the fucking movie? can you imagine being the art director on this thing?

you: so, what do you want this to look like?
bryan singer: well, you know the original superman movie? i want it to look exactly like that. except with clothes from today. and shinier.
you: uhhhh… great. why do you need me again?

sure, there are strict conventions that one must follow when making a superman movie otherwise fanboys around the world get their tights in a knot, but do we really need the fortress of solitude to look exactly like the old one? do we need an actor whose biggest trait is that he looks and acts exactly like christopher reeve? do we really need marlon brando again? and if so, as the new yorker says, “Why not bring back Terry Malloy, from “On the Waterfront,” mumbling reassurance from a bloodied mouth? Who wouldn’t take advice from Stanley Kowalski? Or Colonel Kurtz? One scene with him and even the Man of Steel would snap.”

is it just me, or did they manage to combine superman and superman 2 into one movie? minus general zod, they’ve crammed the “here is superman from another planet” plus the “superman gives it all up to do what he wants” with the “superman loses his powers and will the people love him or hate him after he comes back/regains them.” does this mean that this new sequel will combine 3 and 4, starring dave chapelle in the richard pryor role and jack black as nuclear man?

ultimately, i just don’t understand why they even made this movie. i know that superman’s difficult to do because of an inherent lack of conflict: he’s a literal perfect being, so there is not conflict. he’s always good, he’s always for what’s right. there’s no built in moral and ethical wrangling like you have with batman or the adolescent fumbling/guilt of spidey. the only conflict is whether we, the human race, will accept him as a perfect being or not.

but if that’s all they’ve got, didn’t we already see this before?

Posted at July 8, 2006 2:37 AM