CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Is there really no thread for this film yet? Of course, it is always possible that I missed an already-existing discussion. But it is a rare thing that I actually start a thread on any given movie.

So if you've seen it, please post your thoughts. I have a variety of things to say, but I think I'll hold off until some other members share.

i thought it was well made, and overall enjoyable to watch, but i was very disapointed with the story, i wont give any spoilers but the whole premis was retarded, and deviated too far from the mythology of Superman. i was also really disapointed with thier portrayal of lois lane, she was really annoying caracter for the most part. and while i think kevin spacy played a pretty good lex luthor, lex really didnt add much to the story with most of the trouble he caused in the movie being mostly accidental.

and ill admitt superman 3 and 4 were cheesey but i still enjoyed them^^

I was surprised by this it was pretty good all in all.

What about all the hype that they left out 'The American Way' out of Superman's
Motto?

I wasn't incredibly comfortable with some of the plot twists, but on the whole it was very good. I'll admit I never saw the original Superman movies, so I can't easily compare them to SR, but all-and-all I believe it was worth the money.

I agree to Lois Lane's being annoying, however. I couldn't bring myself to care about her character in the least.

Did anyone else appreciate all the homages there were to the first film in the series? There were five or six definite ones and I found them interesting.

Shinja wrote:i was also really disapointed with thier portrayal of lois lane, she was really annoying caracter for the most part.

However, I did gain some respect for the director because
[spoiler]she didn't magically end up with Superman. I basically liked Richard.[/spoiler]

Shinja wrote:and while i think kevin spacy played a pretty good lex luthor, lex really didnt add much to the story with most of the trouble he caused in the movie being mostly accidental.

I liked the actor as well, but I'm going to disagree with you about the character. As the driving villain of the story, I think he did a good job. Even the minor problems Superman takes care of initially (the plane, mostly) are caused by him. He didn't do it intentionally, but I like how little he cares about the consequences. And then the rest of the movie is pretty much dictated by his actions.

mitsuki lover wrote:What about all the hype that they left out 'The American Way' out of Superman's Motto?

I hadn't heard that hype, but I did notice the absence. To me it was just mildly interesting.

yeah i just saw it today. thought it was decent at most.

much better than Fantastic 4 though. man talk about a retarded movie...

uc pseudonym wrote:Did anyone else appreciate all the homages there were to the first film in the series? There were five or six definite ones and I found them interesting.

I did notice that. There were a lot of throwbacks to the original movie, and I think by the end of the movie they had gotten in the entire father/son speach verbatim.

My big issue with the movie was the sub-plot about
[spoiler]Jason. I did not like the way this was handled at all. They either should have kept this more in the background and focused less on Jason or made it more important and done more with Jason. As it was, it was stuck between too much and too little. It seemed to me that they were trying to have it focused on him just enough to spark interest in a potential sequel.[/spoiler]

Other than that, while there were problems with the movie, it wasn't as bad as some reviews had made it sound.

I thought it was pretty good on the whole although I felt it dragged near the end. The airplane scene near the beginning was spectacular. From the previews, I wasn't sure how good Kevin Spacey was going to be as Lex Luthor, but I left the theater thinking he did a very good job. The final scene on the island with him was funny but it also seemed anti-climatic to me.
I think Batman Begins was better however.

I don't ever actually remember seeing the first one (and I doubt I have), so I can't comment on any homages.

wow kevin spacy was Lex ..........I didn't even recognise him .....weird

I've actually seen the original movies, but it's been awhile. Haven't gotten out to see this one just yet.

I think Batman Begins was better however.

One beef with that movie: many of the fight scenes were hard to tell what was actually going on. I mean, I know it was suppose to be that whole "scare/surprise" tactic on the enemies, but the fights themselves just seemed like the camera moved around far too much. :/

This is a movie that I am really looking forward to and will probably see sometime this week!

It was good, They needed to give more info about the child

I heard someone say that it was more like this actor acting like Christopher Reeves acting like superman... like this actor was trying to be like Reeves or something.

I was pretty dissapointed in it. Out of all the superhero movies, this was the weakest.

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:I was pretty dissapointed in it. Out of all the superhero movies, this was the weakest.

Really? What did you find weak about it? The writing or the acting or the direction or elements of all these things?

About taking the "American Way" out: they may not have said it, but was still there. If any of the three were removed, it was the first.

[spoiler]Mommy never married daddy and now lives with another man who isn't husband or daddy, either? What could be more American than that?[/spoiler]

I thought the movie was well made and I like how it more or less works as a sequel to the previous movies. They even kept the theme song. I questioned it when I first heard it, but I'm glad they did. It immediately let everyone in the theater know who the movie was about. (Of course they knew, but when the music played, they felt it, too).

All said, I can sum up my impression of the movie with one pro and one con.

[spoiler=my con]A friend complained to me that it wasn't an action movie, but that's not what Superman is all about. His powers are such that finding a significant threat for him to go all actiony on is difficult. Superman has always been a love story. The super-heroics work because we identify with the characters. We can't fly. We'd like to and seeing someone do it is kind of cool, but not enough to sell 50+ years of comic books. Superman works because is mixes our desire to stop bullets with our eyes along with the very real and human story of Clark Kent. In my mind, Superman is about Clark Kent's romance with Lois Lane, a part almost completely lost in this movie. It's like the romance is between Superman and Lois and it should be about Clark and Lois. The appearance of Richard changed the traditional Superman love triangle dramatically. This complaint may be rendered mute by the sequels.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=pro]Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey absolutely stole the movie. They were fantastic and basically forced the Lois-Clark-Superman-Richard thing in the back ground, which minimized my "con" for me. They made the movie for me completely overshadowing my disappointments. Because of their performances, I can label the movie "good."[/spoiler]

termyt wrote:About taking the "American Way" out: they may not have said it, but was still there.

That's sadly funny. About pros and cons:
[spoiler]I definitely agree that Superman movies haven't been about action and shouldn't be. That isn't to say that I don't find the occasional sequence like the plane one interesting and in this case well done. I also agree that the key aspect is the human nature of Clark Kent combined with the power of Superman.

However, I can assure you that I don't care about the love story in the slightest. For me, that has always been one part of Superman movies/comics that I've wished would go faster. So, because we differ in this respect, you can see that I have a more positive view of this film.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I can see how that would improve your over-all take on the film. I told a friend that I rather liked the story, it just wasn't "Superman-esc." The movie really didn't spend much time developing the Lois/Clark/Richard characters at all - which is quite a feat in a 2.5 hour movie that didn't have a lot of action, either. [/spoiler]
I've just read that a sequel is scheduled for a 2009 release. That being the case, I think this movie was a good set-up for the next.

I went to see it Sunday with some friends. We were all getting into a deep philosophical discussion about superheroes in modern society, their individual motivations, and how that appeals to the audience. The movie itself did feel like more drama than action, but I liked it. As one who hasn't read hardly any major-label American comics (let alone superhero comics) in recent years, I had very little frame of reference to go on, but I saw nothing terribly wrong with it. We saw it at an IMAX theater though, and although it was cool to see it on such a huge screen, it didn't really make enough use of the 3D idea. There were maybe 4 or 5 scenes out of the whole 2-1/2 hour film where you were prompted to put your glasses on. There were some action sequences that would have been great in 3D but weren't. Overall though, good movie.
Next: Superman vs. Mr. Mxyztplk!

Wow, I saw this today and I definately must say it was a WEIRD experience. [SPOILER] I agree with what some other people have said here that is was weird how they changed the way that SUPERMAN was portrayed: he slept with Louis Lane... they had a kid. (though in the orginal movie series I think he DID sleep with her... The kid wasn't even focused on half as much as they should have if they were going to make it THAT much of a twist. It was like: louis and her son are staring at the door when they are trapped in the room. *cut scene* 10 minutes later they are STILL staring at the door! If the kid had THOSE kinds of powers I doubt he would have been THAT sickly. When Superman flew over that island he should have fallen instantly... Kryptonite was like... within the entire thing! When he's flying up with it away from the earth huge chunks of Kryptonite are jutting out from the bottom right next to him! [/SPOILER]

As UC mentioned about the references to the previous movies, I did catch them. I thought it just aided in the weird feeling I was having. I felt like I was in the Twilight Zone because the people who made this movie didn't want to make a definitive stance: whether to make the movie completely different or completely follow the old movies. It truly did feel like the guy was acting like Christopher Reeves acting like Superman.

Did Lois have a sex change?Just ribbing you but you did spell it Louis Lane.

[spoiler]I assumed that the island was only made of a kryptonite derivative, not the pure substance. Note that he didn't seem to notice until he actually got hit. I suspect that instead of killing him it just dropped him to the level of a tired human. It was interesting when he caught Lex's foot; it shows that this Superman has a lot of experience with this kind of thing and isn't helpless even when extremely weakened.

Regarding the flying part, perhaps he has gained the ability to fight past the effects of krypotonite, if not any immunity to the radiation.[/spoiler]

Because of the similarity in their surnames I think it's easy to get the spelling of
George REEVES confused with that of Christopher REEVE.George Reeves was the original tv Superman and Christopher Reeve was famous for the late '70s Superman movies.

I would suffice to say that kryptonite is more of a plot device than anything else. It weakens the man of steel to a degree necessitated by the story.

The thing that makes people great is not super-powers, but over-coming your weaknesses to get the job done.

And as everyone knows, Kryptonite wasn't part of the original comics. It was invented for the Superman radio drama, as both a plot device and to allow Superman's actor, Bud Collyer, to occasionally take time off.

kaemmerite wrote:And as everyone knows, Kryptonite wasn't part of the original comics. It was invented for the Superman radio drama, as both a plot device and to allow Superman's actor, Bud Collyer, to occasionally take time off.

WHOA! Really?! I never knew that!!!

Also, doesn't Red Kryptonite transfer Superman's powers?

Red Kryptonite: Red kryptonite inflicts random effects on Kryptonians, typically creating an initial "tingling effect" in those affected. No two chunks of red kryptonite have the same effect. Red kryptonite effects typically last for 24-48 hours (though sometimes as long as 72), after which the Kryptonian in question is always immune to that specific chunk of red kryptonite. Superman has suffered the following effects upon exposure to various pieces of red kryptonite: being turned into a dragon, a non-powered giant, a dwarf, an ant-headed humanoid, a lunatic, and an amnesiac; being made unable to see anything colored green; growing incredibly long hair, nails, and beard; being rendered totally powerless; gaining the ability to read thoughts; losing his invulnerability along the left side of his body; being split into an evil Superman and a good Clark Kent; being rendered unable to speak or write anything but Kryptonese, the language used on Krypton; growing an extra set of arms; becoming clumsy when trying to help out; swapping bodies with the person nearest him upon exposure to it; rapidly aging; and multiple personality changes.

Gold Kryptonite: Removes superpowers from Kryptonians permanently; however, in one story, a temporary antidote was developed that negated this effect for a short period of time. For obvious reasons, this variety was little used in Superman stories.

White Kryptonite: Kills all plant life, whether Kryptonian or not. Induces decay immediately upon exposure, with a range of about 25 yards.

Blue Kryptonite: The result of using Professor Potter's "duplicator ray" on some Green Kryptonite. Pre-Crisis, blue kryptonite affected only Bizarros, and in a manner similar to that of green kryptonite on Kryptonians.

Anti-Kryptonite: Has no effect on superpowered Kryptonians, but has the same effects as Green Kryptonite on non-superpowered Kryptonians.

Pink Kryptonite: From an alternate timeline in a 2003 Supergirl storyline by Peter David, this bizzare variety of kryptonite apparently turned heterosexual Kryptonians temporarily into homosexuals; it was seen in just one panel, with Superman giving flattering compliments to Jimmy Olsen about his wardrobe and decorative sense. It spoofs the many varieties of kryptonite introduced over the years, as well as the more "innocent times" of the Silver Age. (Lois Lane is depicted in this story as not understanding what's gotten into Superman.) This version of kryptonite has not been used in mainstream comics continuity.

There's more...but I'm too lazy to post 'em. XD

Did you get that from Wikipedia?!?!?

Thanks for the info, Nate!

In Smallville kryptonite also affects any human who comes in contact with it,thus accounting for the number of super freaks that the young Clark has to combat,otherwise it would have been a rather boring series.Generally though kryptonite has no effect on non-kyrptonians as long as they do not have a too long exposure to it.But in the comics Lex Luthor suffers a cancer like effect because he insists on wearing a kryptonite ring.
Another thing is that Superman is also vulnerable to magic.