Superman Is Dead, and We Killed Him

wholesale nike shoes
wholesale shoes
wholesale nike running shoes
wholesale nike basketball shoes
wholesale shoes
wholesale jordan shoes
wholesale dunk shoes
wholesale adidas shoes
SEO
Ugg boots
UK Ugg boots
美国主机

Choose, buy and shop for on sale tiffany jewelry including Tiffany & Co Silver Necklace, Pendants, Bangles, Bracelets, Earrings, Rings and Accessories
tiffany jewelry
tiffany jewellery
tiffany bracelets
rolex replica
tiffany rings
tiffany necklaces
tiffany necklece
tiffanys
tiffany accessories
bags online
backpacks

Superman is an action hero, not a stupid storyline embued with values that identify him with racists.free games

Like it or not, the pure good guy is not longer 'in vogue'. Nowadays, it is about the gray area. Neither completelty good or bad. I don't know whether that is healthy but it is definitely a change compared to what I was used to in the 70s.
prince of persia movie action figure | iron man movie action figure atmospheric diving armour

Having said that, there is no point arguing what is better. The more important thing is how we adapt to cope with current expectations.

Um... this lacks logic or insight. I don't really care to get in to it now, but I wanted to support the fact that Superman is alive and well and just because his latest film wasn't a super blockbuster like the latest Batman movie doesn't prove anything, just that one was more successful than the other.
moving on.

The TV show "Smallville" has been getting the Superman formula right for years. Why didn't anyone tap into the writers, or for that matter, the actors from that show? I would like to see the Smallville cast and crew graduate from the story of Clark Kent through his evolution to Superman. Tom Welling has the essence down pat, and Jessica Durance is a better Lois Lane than even Margot Kidder!

" Where was the action? Where was the humor? Where was the romance? "

There was plenty of humor and romance in Returns. A critic from Amazon.com even stated that the “humorous and romantic elements give the movie a heart". He even praises some to action scene as being “elegant and spectacular". Returns weren’t the action-driven film that many were hoping, but Bryan has stated the sequel would more action-packed. As he stated he wanted to go all "Wrath of Khan".

"He saw Superman as a god in a cape and a tragic figure."

Just because his Superman doesn't mean that he never feels lonely, disappointed, or unsure of himself. Superman is optimist, but that doesn’t mean bad things doesn't happen to him. Anyone can be optimistic when every thing is going fine. Superman is a character that is able to take the bad with the good and isn't that what he did in Returns.

If you think Superman should be dark and gritty, then you simply don't know Superman. Superman should be uplifting and be about hope. It's one of many reasons Superman Returns was bad, because Singer didn't get that. He saw Superman as a god in a cape and a tragic figure. He kept using the term 'savior' instead of hero. Where was the action? Where was the humor? Where was the romance? Superman should have more in common with the Star Trek franchise approach than Batman. Not all heroes are meant to be dark and fail when they're dark. Superman is not only one of the heroes who should not be dark, he's the main hero who should not be dark.

Make Clark Kent a real guy. A whole generation of Superman fans have grown up with Clark Kent not pretending to be a dork and they don't respond well to dorky Clark Kent. Get a sexy sassy Lois Lane. Kate Bosworth and her whiny melancholy characterization was bad and no fun. Make it action packed. Give the audience a reason to cheer instead of cringe. Superman can do amazing things that no other hero can do, take advantage of that rather than hamstring him. Lex is a bit stale when he's taken too seriously and too dark. If you can't write him well, dump him and use another villain and definitely get writers who understand Superman.

"but the problem writers run into is how to make a guy that can't die … seem human. We can't identify with something like that"

It's only a problem if you think the defining characteristic of humanity is death. Isn't there so much more to it? Superman embodies all of the best human virtues. In these days of relativism and nihilism, though, fewer people than ever seem to aspire to those virtues.

bbg372 You must either be a liberal or your below the age of 12. Do you really think Bush was the most conservative president of all time? WTF! You don't know what your talking about. Read a book.

Superman can stomp Batman's ass. Batman failed to save the girl in Dark Knight. Superman altered the earths rotation and went back in time to save Lois. Batman glides, Superman is capable of self propelled interplanetary travel. Batman is always begging for help from the likes of Alfred, Commissioner Gordon, Harvey Dent, and whoever that guy is that Morgan Freeman played. I believe that makes him a needy wuss, Superman is self reliant.
Batman's relies on cool looking military vehicles, Superman could throw the batmobile into outer space. Batman has a grapple hook and batarang that would bounce off Superman's chest, Superman would simply incinerate Batman with his heat vision. A wimpy, short little Joker nearly defeated Batman not to mention blew up his Ex girlfriend. If it was Superman Vs Joker the film would've been a tidy 15 minutes.
Batman chose to dress up as a bat to fight crime, projecting his fear of winged rodents onto criminals who easily fall for it. Superman could leave the Earth anytime but he chooses to stay because he believes there is hope for mankind, also Superman's dad never did anything stupid like take his family through an alley at night, what a dumb ass. Really that should have made him want to kill ignorant, trusting rich guys.

"Superman is about hope. He's not a dark complex character. He is the Big Blue Boy Scout."

But Superman was a Big Blue Boy Scout in Returns. There was nothing dark about in that film. Superman was shown as a benevolent god hovering over Earth listening to the people that need his help and isn't that virtuous. I feel that a lot of fans keep going back to the same thing. If the fans could only think about the film a little then see that Returns is an great movie.

Superman is about hope. He's not a dark complex character. He is the Big Blue Boy Scout. Even in the crazy world we live in today i think people will still go to see Superman. The problem with Superman Returns is it was such a downer. There was no hope. There was nothing in that movie that made me feel up lifted. The original Superman movie promised that we would believe a man could fly? What did they want me to believe in this movie? there was no message at all. What i walked away with was Superman is a baby's daddy and Lex Luthor had to seduce an old lady to make money. Now pitch that in a studio meeting and let's see who would by it. Oh someone did and they made a huge mistake. If you want Superman to work in this day and age then really make the Obama comparison. Superman comes after a time the world has suffered great turmoil due to the likes of Lex Luthor. With Superman he changes things for the better. He exposes and fixes the things Lex Luthor has caused. And not just becausse of his superpower. But because he makes the peole believe that better times can happen as long as they don't give up hope.

clicked "next" to see a full page of ads... for the last THREE lines?

bullshit.

Others on this forum have already pointed out that by certain measures, 'Superman Returns' was a success (which I must confess was a little surprising), and others have pointed out the factual concerns in the article itself. So I'd like to raise a different perspective as to why, despite the aforementioned measures of success, there was a certain feeling of something lacking in the film.

I felt a lack of connection to this film despite its solid production quality. After thinking about it, especially after watching the first Superman movie again, which had some pretty poor production quality at times, I've come to the following conclusion. Even when he was Superman, Christopher Reeve still had this open humanity that enabled a feeling for the character even though he represents perfection. It also made his humanitarian actions seem connected fundamentally to his very existence, which gave a grounding for his actions. He always came across as a guy who was concerned about what happened to others.

Brandon Routh - whether due to direction or his own volition - had a calm, all-powerful, strong portrayal, but for me he just came as cold and hard, like Mount Rushmore. It's not due to Routh's acting - he's convincing as Clark. The chosen portrayal of Superman just left little to connect to, and gave no real motivation for why he bothered saving people - he did it because it came with the uniform. Without that heart as Superman, everything else just came across as heavy and overburdened. Again, a little like Mount Rushmore. Iconic, but heavy and cold.

That and the fact that Superman and Lois's son came across as Michelle from Full House crossed with Wesley Crusher from Star Trek.

Anyhoo, just one person's two copper Lincolns.

"'Superman Returns,' the 2006 Bryan Singer dirge, didn’t fail because audiences no longer resonate with a super being that can fly, shoot heat from his eyes and is immune to bullets. It failed because Superman is the epitome of good morals and justice, which today’s audience find boring and childish."

Perhaps "Superman Returns" did not resonate with audiences because it featured Superman, who is supposed to be the “epitome of good morals and justice” as an absentee father of an illegitimate child.

"Does Superman only work when we have a conservative Republican president?"

Apparently not; as noted previously, "Superman Returns" did not resonate with audiences, and it was released during one of the most conservative Republican administrations in the history of the United States. By the reasoning of the author, "Superman Returns" should have been embraced to wide acclaim.

Okay, I stopped reading after you said Superman wouldn't be in support of gay marriage. Bullshit. Superman would be in support of things that makes people happy, love most of all. Superman would NOT support guns of any type. You've confused Superman with Jonathan Kent. A man is not his Father.

Also, Superman Returns actually received a decent critical response and made well over 200 million at the box office. It's only the fanboys telling you it wasn't successful.

"Bryan Singer was obviously trying too hard to make him dark and introspective---traits better suited to Batman."

How did Singer make Superman dark? In Returns, he went around the world saving people falling from tall buildings, putting away fires, and preventing fatal car accidents. He never brood or did anything moral questionable. He was kind, compassionate, and willing to admit when he made a mistake so how is that dark?

" When I saw Superman hovering above Lois lane's place, spying through the walls, I knew that Singer didn't understand the character."

I think a lot fans don't understand that scene. That scene was meant show Superman on the outside look in. It was meant to show him pondering on the life he could have had or want could have been.

"I also didn't buy Brandon Routh simply because he wasn't big enough. Superman is meant to be a big, imposing guy. Criminals should quake in their boots at the very sight of him."

Brandon Routh was actually very buff and very muscular.

If you want to make a Superman movie that'll really work in terms of the character, try getting a copy of "Miracle Monday", the Superman novel by Eliot S. Maggin. It perfectly captures just who (and what) Superman is, and who (and what) he isn't. Once you understand those, the rest will be much easier. The WB animated series came very close to this idea.

Or, if you want an edgier Superman, then try "Kingdom Come", the classic graphic novel by Waid & Ross (and adapted in novel form by Maggin). Here you have a Superman who really questions where society is and if he's still relevant, yet ultimately decides where the real problem lies (and it ain't just him).

I don't want yet another deeply flawed, borderline nuts, hugely violent and self-pitying superhero. They're far more cliched that Superman was or is. And it doesn't matter who is in the White House. People will respond positively to the classic, altruistic, morally-upright Superman, provided the movie is made well and honestly. I know I will.

Besides, not only can Superman stop the major league bad guys, he can save the Earth from an asteroid, rescue a community from an earthquake, and get you cat out of a tree. Can Batman or Wolverine do that?

I have to disagree. Tobey Maguire played a similar nice-boy-next-door role in Spiderman 1-3 and all 3 movies were hits. I think with the right story (it has to have a villain) and enough publicity a new Superman movie can be both a box-office hit and a critical success. The last Superman movie failed IMHO because the storyline was lackluster and he was up against...a green rock; I do not think it is because America and the world has changed so much as to shun the Clark Kent/Superman American boy scout nice-guy persona.

Now if that green rock had been sentient and moving, I think it would have been a bigger hit. :)

It is also admittedly hard to find a villain for a super-strong, super-fast and near-invulnerable boy scout but as others said there are a lot to go around. I think it might also be a good idea to reboot the movie series the way they did with Batman Begins; that way they don't get limited by continuity restrictions.

If I could direct and produce Superman movies, I would do it this way:
Superman : The Legend is Born - Reboot. Standard Krypton explosion and growing up story. Villains: General Zod and Lex Luthor. I would also develop a better back story why Lex Luthor is Superman's enemy.
Superman II : The Dark Half - Lex Luthor strikes again, this time cloning Superman through trickery (the old Superman IV storyline) and producing Bizarro. Superman will have to battle a version of him that was raised without the morals taught by his parents.
Superman III : Death and Rebirth - Doomsday comes out of nowhere. Superman fights him to the death. World mourns his loss. Steel comes in as a replacement. Doomsday is revived by Lex Luthor and is able to control him. Luthor loses control of Doomsday. Doomsday goes on a rampage. Superman is revived and stops Doomsday once and for all.
Superman IV : The Apocalypse - Darkseid attempts to invade Earth. Superman of course fights him, possibly with Lex Luthor as a reluctant ally.

I have been a big Superman fan since the George Reeves Superman show. Superman Returns might have tanked in the box office because of writing and story. My opinion that certain concepts in Superman Returns was good. A return was needed, yes that was good Kevin Spacy as Lex Luthor good. The whole dynamic of Lois being a single mother and Superman being the father is kind of far fetched. Yes mostly in a Superman movie the thing that could even hurt Superman was Kryptonite. Superman was vulnerable to magic. Brainiac, Doomsday, Bizzaro, and magic gave Superman a run for his money. Even the Zod and the krytonian villians that escaped from the phantom zone. They should take comic book issues to make into a movie not just what they think that people would like to see in a movie. Superman yes was the essences of the "by scout" but the other heros that he joined up with in the Justice League balanced it out. Batman was just the opposite the dark loner complimented Superman.

Super-man Lives Mother F---ker

http://www.amazon.com/All-Star-Superman-Vol-1/dp/140121102X/ref=sr_1_2?i...

http://www.amazon.com/All-Star-Superman-Vol-2/dp/1401218377/ref=sr_1_1?i...

They should just adapt this.

As many have stated, Superman Returns sucked because of poor writing, bad casting and total ignorance of character's core. Bryan Singer was obviously trying too hard to make him dark and introspective---traits better suited to Batman. When I saw Superman hovering above Lois lane's place, spying through the walls, I knew that Singer didn't understand the character. Christopher Reeves always played Superman with a little bit of smirk that showed underneath it all, he enjoyed being so powerful and he enjoyed helping people.

I also didn't buy Brandon Routh simply because he wasn't big enough. Superman is meant to be a big, imposing guy. Criminals should quake in their boots at the very sight of him.

Also, as noted by others, Lois Lane was played pitch-perfect by Margot kidder and whether or not Kate Bosworth is a capable actress is irrelevant when saddled with such a horrendous script. A Pulitzer Prize winner that can't spell catastrophic? Really? And yes, the age thing was annoying. She must have graduated from college (if she went at all) when she was about 12.

I too, wanted to see a lot more butt-kicking from the Supes in Superman Returns but again, Singer wanted so badly to repeat the success of Batman Begins and so he tried to emulate the tone of Chris Nolan's instant classic.

The 70's version of Superman worked because the writing was balanced, the casting was spot-on and Superman acted like Superman. I really don't see the 'times' as having anything to do with it. I just watched Superman a few nights ago and it still holds up just fine...it is only dated by some of the wardrobe and the obvious lack of computers and cell phones.

If 'they' decide to take another stab at Superman, I sincerely hope that Bryan Singer is nowhere near the thing.

The Superman films aren't good because in most of them his main villain is a green rock. That's not interesting. Superman is so strong that it is hard to give him an opponent that is a real threat. Write a movie where Brainiac or Darkseid is the villain, dial down the Clark Kent part of the story (especially the relationship stuff), and make a good comic book action movie.

"Not to nitpick but "Superman" came out in 1978 and "Superman II" was in 1980 so they came out during the Carter years. During the Reagan years we got III, IV and "Supergirl", all of which are universally derided as bad. I really don't know that I would tie any of them to the political climate."

Superman II was only released in Europe in 1980. It was not released in the United States until June 1981, which was 5 months after Reagan took office. For Americans, it was a Reagan era film.

I think Brandon Routh did an amazing job as Superman/Clark. He was nomianted by the Saturn and Empire awards for best newcomer. I also think Kate Bosworth did a pretty good job, even thou she was not as good as Margot Kidder.

It's ultimately poor writing that killed Superman. Bryan Singer wanted to make a Superman movie like it was still 1978 and did not take into account that Superman has changed. He is now married to Lois Lane and she knows his secret. She is not a single mom with a five year old, has a boyfriend who is Clark/Superman, and unbelievably shrill. Kate Bosworth was badly miscast as Lois Lane because she was too young (was she underage when she got pregnant!) and made Lois incredibly annoying. Also, Smallville has learned to take the Superman legend in different directions from adolescence to early adulthood (or midlife considering the cast is probably well over 30 by now). Superman Returns was simply Superman: The Movie all over again with a less charismatic cast. Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder blow Brandon Roush and Kate Bosworth out of the water (I'll give Kevin Spacey credit for getting close to Gene Hackman). That is the reason for Superman's demise.

Come on people it is so obvious, Superman isn't dead The last time I checked Heath Ledger was the dead guy. I'd subtract 300 million bucks off the films box-office take if Heath had been alive.

If Brandon Routh had died before Superman Return's release it would've stomped The Dark Knights butt. Batman Begins is a much better film, but no one died so it didn't make as much money. How else do you think someone in a comic book movie won an Oscar for portraying an over the top crazy person. It would never have happened if Heath would have been around to accept the award.

kjohnson1585 read the posts I stated that The Fleischer Superman is the key to a uccessful Superman film.

"Superman should not be an absentee father and should not have slept with Lois Lane and left."

Superman didn't know that he was a father when he left, and he didn't even know that Lois was pregnant. When he returned to the Daily Planet he was shocked that was had a child. Furthermore, the idea that Superman and Lois slept together is a reference to Superman II and in that film they broke up. I think Superman not telling Lois that he left was his way of not making a difficult situation worse.

"He is not in love triangles nor are his morals gray"

I think the fans may be forgetting about Cat Grant and Lana Lang that add a new dynamic to the Superman/ Lois/Clark triangle. Also there was nothing morally gray about him in Returns. The only thing that Superman makes him guilty wanting to know that his lineage still existed. I believe fans forget that Superman Returns was about redemption.

"Nobody in the 'MTV' demographic wants to see an invincible "Seth Cohen" trying to use his superpowers to get with his dream girl. "

I guess people must have forgotten the scene where Superman tells Lois “I hear everything. You wrote that the world doesn't need a savior, but every day I hear people crying for one.” Superman was trying to prove to Lois that the world still needs him not to win her over, because he believed that he already lost her. Dan Harris says that idea of Lois moving on was used so Superman could learn and grow from it.

Superman isn't dead, and he doesn't have to be more edgy. He just needs a good story. The problem with Superman especially in the movies is that they haven't made a good one since Superman II. Bryan Singer's Superman was him being an absentee father, who stalked his baby mama. There's your edgy and dark. Movies like Night at the Museum, Transformers, and a whole bunch of Disney movies that are successfull don't have edgy dark heroes. And Peter Parker isn't exactly edgy and the Spiderman movies makes boatloads of Drug Cartel money. All Superman needs is a good story and some eye popping action(where Superman actually fights another super powered being). The beauty of Superman is you can put him in an edgy and dark world and have him be the only thing that is pure. That contrast is always entertaining if done right. The Christ story will never die or lose popularity. And that's what Superman's story is in the Comic world.

This is a very clever, but totally unsubstantiated article. I think Caine's quote is interesting, but if it's true, why is Kansas paying to see Batman instead of Superman? America's view of the world has grown in complexity, as have our comicbook movies. Unfortunately, entertainment writing hasn't.

"Our president takes every opportunity to bash this country and "apologize" to the rest of the world."

And I suspect you don't even know where the "rest" of the world exists on a map.

"This president is Jimmy Carter revisited...with a socialist twist and a sycophant media! Obama makes you want to wave the flag? What are you smoking?"

You don't have an idea what "socialist" exactly means like most right-wing idiots in the USA. Are you smoking crack?

By the way as someone already pointed out SUPERMAN RETURNS failed indeed because the "rest" of the world is bored to death by conservative US self-image propaganda. And Superman was never a big seller outside the US compared to Batman or other US entertainment stuff that is overall not so shallow.

The answer is to do a "bizzaro Superman" film.

Bizzaro Superman is everything Superman isn't and to have a film revolve only on him would be a box office smash.

You're welcome!

The "Jims" have it.

I think we're looking at all this the wrong way. The problem with Superman isn't that we have difficulty in seeing him as a strong, patriotic figure, is that we don't see him struggle with being a strong, patriotic figure. In other words, we don't see him as a character. Struggle, conflict is not the same as emo-pining-over-Lois attitudes.

Every time I see blogs speak about Superman it amazes me how no one references the very popular animated versions, both the Max Fleischer's toons of the 60s and the WB toon of the 90s. What made these great were that Superman dealt with real, real enemies-- enemies that could not only destroy a lot of people, but could practically destroy Superman himself. (Superman being "indestructible" is part of the problem. The man can take a bullet, but exploding tanker truck should be able to knock him for a loop.)

If we do take the political stance, the Superman-as-we-see-America stance, well, it only goes to prove my point. Right now we see our country as very vulnerable-- with a bad economy, a quagmire of a war, our split differences on gay marriage and torture-- AS WELL as seeing our enemies powerful enough to indeed do us harm, like 9-11, nuclear proliferation in Pakistan and Iran, etc. The truth is, however, we ALWAYS knew our country was vulnerable-- WW2, the Cold War, home-grown terrorism (like McVay)-- and what would make sense would be giving Superman enemies that can hurt him. Where are the Braniacs, the Bizarros, the Darkseids? (The latter may be a bit extreme, but you get my point).

Superman isn't detective-smart like Batman, nor is he fighting-skilled-wise as... well Batman. It would be interesting to see him out-smarted, or, god-forbid, lose a fight that cost him dearly. American does lose, and we aren't the smarted guys in the room (See Enron, AIG), so it would absolutely work if we see Superman BECOME someone.

I think someone needs to re-check their history books. Superman was made in 1978 and Superman 2 came out in 1980, you know "the dismal carter years." All the Reagen years gave us were the crappy Superman 3 and Superman 4, both horrible movies that the American people rightly rejected.

Superman Returns "failed" (it made about the same at the boxoffice as Batman Begins) because it was not an action film.

Superman Returns was character study on what actually hurts a person who is invulnerable.

It was a comic book movie but not an action movie and that threw alot of people off. If you take it for what it is, its really a very good movie.

I think your offbase.

I think the main reason Superman failed is because he wasn't the icon of goodness and invincibility he is supposed to be. He had the look, but not the personality. I myself could not stand that Superman had a child and that he was an absentee father. This something that Superman would not do because as you pointed out he was "raised in Kansas by Methodist parents".

In my opinion the new Superman was an attempt to give character flaws of the wrong type to a character that is symbolic of all that is good with the world. Superman should not be an absentee father and should not have slept with Lois Lane and left. None of it fit. It seemed like a fake and soulless attempt to revive Superman.

To be quite honest, I wanted the idealistic and morally perfect Superman. I didn't want the Superman that was given to us. Superman is one of the few characters that does not have the same problem as other heroes. He is not in love triangles nor are his morals gray. He is Superman, the icon of what is good and right in the world. And the new Superman tried to turn him into something he is not.

So instead of assuming America wants something different with Superman, how about someone try and give us the real Superman first. Not this absentee father who left Lois Lane in the lurch with his child, something I could never, ever imagine Superman doing. Ever!!! It ruined the film for me on top of the flat acting.

Yep spot on Sunking. As a Brit I too reckon supes is too centrally focused on classic American ideals and that means he loses his international appeal. Yes, the studios are (and should) be chasing the domestic market because its the most profitable for them, but they need to realise in an increasingly internationally aware world, there may be many Americans sick to death of the Us and Them approach.

THe best alternative i can imagine is providing big action while attacking the morals of superman and his god complex (which was don best in 'Red Son' by Mark Millar). If you explore how he's human its boring, but if you explore how he's alien its much more compelling, plus it allows the possibility of turning Lex Luthor into an ambiguous villain rather than a simplistic mad scientist villain.

I Think the reason Superman doesn't resonate is because he is terribly written.
Nobody in the 'MTV' demographic wants to see an invincible "Seth Cohen" trying to use his superpowers to get with his dream girl.

It also doesn't help that the only Villain we have seen him fight is a bald guy holding a green rock. people still care about the superman type of hero.
while i haven't been watching, Smallville is close to becoming the longest running Sci Fi television show ever.

Heroes first season success was also off the back of their two superman like characters. the guy who had all the powers, and the invulnerable girl. then they made him dark, and the show's ratings declined. coincidence.

This Year Superman returned to our screens, Under the alias James T Kirk. another ohio farmboy, with a perchant for lycra. and saving the universe. it was one of the years great movies already.

Superman is the perfect hero for dark times, he represents hope and that one person can change the world. then Christopher reeve lived it. he was Superman.

while Batman is a jerk who struggles with his humanity. Superman's Humanity is shown on the epic scale. something we don't see when he is busy chasing skirts. his strength, determination, intelligence. his true masculinity is what has really been lost.

Speaking as someone who lives in the UK, is not an American citizen and is, by and large, non-partison, the most glaringly obvious difference between Superman and Batman is this: Superman is an alien; Batman is a human being.

This might seem superficial at first glance, but it's more than just a case of the two being biologically different. Superman holds highly simplistic ideals which he never needs to justify. He's black and white; he's just not that complex.

Batman is a human being with flaws. He is constantly faced with inner demons and battles which are not just physical but, also, emotional. It's not the fact that he's "cooler"; he's a more interesting character straight off the bat, because he's more like us. At points we pity the character, and at others we applaud him.

But Superman isn't just alien in his morality – which he decides transcends everyone else's – he's alien by the fact of how American he is. This whole article goes to prove it, in fact. Many people on this site have been going on about how Superman's decline in popularity represents something in America, but that's the whole point: he's YOUR superhero and not ours.

I've never been sold on the concept of Superman. When someone decides to make a film about him that explores the character in ways I can sympathise with, please, wake me up.

Keep the story simple, the elements as they should be can be found in the early Max Fleischer animated shorts. They are as "Dark" as Superman has ever been. Once the script writers are finished adding their hundreds of 2 cents worth of lame ideas, you end up with things like, Superman's kid, and Batman's new sidekick Morgan Freeman (yes even The Dark Knight has it's flaws).

There is absolutely nothing political about this "Superman-Batman" competition. People just want to see Superman fly around, beat up some bad guys, and save Lois. It's not that hard to understand. Look at Star Wars Episode 4, the bad guys are the dark and brooding ones and the good guys are there to defeat them. It doesn't work the other way around.

So disregard anything in this article. It's about good stories,directors, actors, etc. If The Dark Knight would've been written and directed by Bryan Singer we would be talking about how good Superman Returns was.

" I also do not believe the people on the MTV blog and Coventry Telegraph represent the majority of people or even the majority of online posters"

I never said they represented the majority, but they do represent a significant amount of people that want a darker Superman. Blogs like MTV are very influential to the public that listen to their comments and critique.

I also do not believe the people on the MTV blog and Coventry Telegraph represent the majority of people or even the majority of online posters.

" Those people need to stay the fuck away from superman"

My point exactly.

"There are people that believe that Superman has to be like Batman in order to connect with today's audience not just Warner Brothers."

Those people need to stay the fuck away from superman

"No one has demanded a darker Superman film."

Actually the MTV blog and Coventry Telegraph believes that Superman has to be darker in order to succeed. Legendary Pictures also want the next Superman film to evoke his angry god persona. Superman gets angry, but anger is not one defining characteristic. There are people that believe that Superman has to be like Batman in order to connect with today's audience not just Warner Brothers.

To JIM2,

No one has demanded a darker Superman film. The only place I heard that was from the studio, in view of the success of the Dark Knight. And that is standard retarded, reactionary studio thinking. If X worked once, then we should make all our movies X.

I disagree with your basic premise. Singer's film failed to meet expectations because it was flawed, not because people would not be interested in a Superman film. If it had been more fun and had had more action, it would have done a lot better. See, for example, the Spider-man and Iron Man films.

Singer's film was boring, plain and simple. And it's funny because I thought his X-men films focused too much on action at the expense of character.

"It isn't because Superman doesn't have the ability to resonate with today's audiences. It's because Bryan Singer screwed the pooch and made a lousy Superman film.
It wasn't the fault of fans or movie going audiences."

If Superman is able to resonate with today's audiences then why are people demanding that the next Superman film should be darker? Why are they saying that the next film should emphasize his evil side? There are a lot of fans and movie going that enjoyed. According to imdb over 68,000 votes that are in favor of Returns against over 22,000. The percentage that didn't like the film is most likely the ones demanding a darker Superman film. Those are people that not only don't understand Superman Returns; they don't understand Superman at all. Singer was reverent to the mythology so how is it his fault that movie going public didn't get it. Sam Peckinpah wanted the movie going public to be horrified at the gritty violence in Wild Bunch, but instead they enjoyed the brutality. There is only so much a director can control and take responsibility. Instead of blaming the director for everything maybe we should look at ourselves.

I love how some people go overboard in projecting their own political/personal preferences onto a fictional character like Superman, and then use that for a basis to explain the film.

(By the way, if you just HAVE to indulge in that kind of stuff, it's been established for quite a few years that Batman is the Republican, and Superman the liberal.)

The simple fact is the reason Superman returns failed was established very simply and to the point by Keith:

" Bryan Singer turned the Man of Steel into an emo beta male who whined about not fitting in and stalked his ex-girlfriend. Meanwhile Lex Luthor was even more of a campy joke than he was in the Christopher Reeve movies. "

There are many more components that contribute to the films failure (The kid being a glaring example), but the point is the movie doesn't require all the intellectual analysis and political overtones to understand why it was a miserable, boring piece of flotsam foisted off as entertainment.

( I have a great deal of experience with the character, I know whereof I speak.)

It isn't because Superman doesn't have the ability to resonate with today's audiences. It's because Bryan Singer screwed the pooch and made a lousy Superman film.
It wasn't the fault of fans or movie going audiences.

Superman IS a no brainer, and I have no doubt in the hands of the right Director with a dynamite story the character has tons of potential.

The real question is will he ever make it back to the big screen any time soon?

Why is a fictional superhero being compared to today's politics? If that is the case then why is there no comment concerning the divisive racial rhetoric being espoused by the republican base?

Christopher Reeves was always cool and the movies written were superior to the one recently released.

I do not identify Superman with the people he was raised with, because if I had to consider them I would never watch a superman movie again; not even for free.

To me Superman movies are about beating Lex Luthor. He was one bad dude and funny as hell. Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor is iconic.

Return to superior storylines that have nothing to do with the daily events of superman's life and get with the events of whats happening in and to the world.

Superman is an action hero, not a stupid storyline embued with values that identify him with racists.

I believe in truth justice and the american way: I believed it when George Reeves said it and I believe it now. When he said it he meant all Americans and that is why his superman was a success and Christopher Reeves' Superman was a success. No politics.

Mr. Buckman,
I think other people have already pointed out many of the shortcomings of your article, so I'll refrain from repeating things.

That just leaves me with one question to ask you: which "icy-cold, psychologically jacked hero that shoots heroin in the women's restroom after ripping out the spine of a baddie while bemoaning Corporate America" are you referring to? Sounds like a guy I'd love to check out...as I sure don't recall anything of the sort from the comics I've read or the comic-based movies I've seen.

I think there are a lot of fans that get Superman Returns and a lot of other fans that don't get it. Singer's Superman never once whined or felt sorry for himself in the movie. How is he feeling sorry for himself if he is stopping bank robberies, preventing car accidents, and saving people from falling to their death? I don't understand how people can see the characters in Returns flawed. Superman didn't know Lois was pregnant when he left and Lois had a right to move on during Superman's departure. Superman sacrificed himself to save the world yet accuse him of being self-indulgent. Furthermore, you can't compare Superman with Spider-man. Spider-Man is easier character for the audience to relate, because his mythology has a balance of lightness and angst. Superman on the other hand is more about hope and less about angst. They are two types of people that didn’t like the movie; the ones that hated it and the ones that jumped on the bandwagon.

I think there are a lot of fans that get Superman Returns and a lot of other fans that don't get it. Singer's Superman never once whined or felt sorry for himself in the movie. How is he feeling sorry for himself if he is stopping bank robberies, preventing car accidents, and saving people from falling into their death? I don't understand how people can see the characters in Returns flawed. Superman didn't know Lois was pregnant when he left and Lois had a right to move on during Superman's departure. Superman sacrificed himself to save the world yet accuse him of being self-indulgent. They are two types of people that didn’t like the ones; the ones that hated and the ones that jumped on the bandwagon.

I think there are a lot of fans that get Superman Returns and a lot of other fans that don't get it. Singer's Superman never once whined or felt sorry for himself in the movie. How is he feeling sorry for himself if he is stopping bank robberies, preventing car accidents, and saving people from falling into their death? I don't understand how people can see the characters in Returns flawed. Superman didn't know Lois was pregnant when he left and Lois had a right to move on during Superman's departure. Superman scarified himself to save the world yet accuse him of being self-indulgent. They are two types of people that didn’t like the ones ; the ones that hated and the ones that jumped on the bandwagon.

Regardless of the politics, I think your arguement is flawed. While the new Batman franchise is both successful and dark, its not the only example of a succesful superhero adaption. The Sam Raimi's Spiderman series (especially the first one) and Favreu's Iron Man were both optomistic (relatively) and positive. Even Wolverine, doesn't hold as a good example as he came out of the X-Men movies, and most of the heroes in that were decidedly non-anti. Add on non-canon characters like The Incredibles and Wil Smith's Hancock and you have plenty of non-brooding, non-anti heroes (in the case of Hancock its a rejection of the anti-heroe archetype). Films that were both entertaining and successful.

I agree with several of the people who have already posted, in that the main problem with the Superman movies are they don't get the character. Superman is a more subtle character than most people realize. Because of his strength and abilities it seems a no brainer to script big set piece action scenes with giant mechanical spiders. What sets the big blue boyscout apart is the fact that he is essentially unstoppable, that he could theoretically impose his will on every man woman and child. But he chooses not to. A character who doesn't have to follow the rules but does so because its what he feels to be right.

Also, writers need to remember that Clark Kent is not Superman, Kent is a disguise - Superman is the real identity. DC needs to follow Marvel's lead and give their property to a writer/director who knows and loves the material. Not hand it off to Hollywood's latest wunderkid who hammers everything into an allegory about homosexuality/alienation or labors it into some messiah allegory. Singers Superman was half Passion of the Christ and half Doing Time on Maple Drive, and all wrong.

Wow--you couldn't be more wrong.

First--"Superman Returns" failed because it was a lousy movie, with a 90210-age level Superman and the ludicrous "Superman's son" plot line.

Second, as another writer pointed out, the first two movies were made during the Carter years, not the Reagan years.

Third--Superman is not a conservative, at least not by the by the standards this article writer would set. The ideals of truth and justice that Superman espouses transcend petty partisan politics. He would never take a life and doesn't torture, no matter what the cost. Yes, he was brought up in the Midwest and has deep-rooted family values. But as a space traveler and a non-human himself, he's seen a lot stranger pairings than two men or two women, so I doubt he would have any problem with gay marriage. Assault weapons? He's not official law enforcement and wouldn't have any reason to confiscate weapons not used in a crime.

The only way to make a successful Superman movie is to make one with a confident Superman who is secure in his ideals of truth and justice. Someone who can be admired regardless of political stance.

Good piece. But I am sorry the new president does not inspire optimism and confidence for me. So for the millions who are thinking "oh cr*p - so much for America" how does that change the math for propose here?

Er sorry, Fred.

Hey P.E. what storyline was that called? Sounds intriguing.

What a great post!

I think at the turn of the last century, a collective wave of amnesia hit America.

We deluded ourselves with a sense of self-righteousness brought about by growing economic hegemony and religious fervor.

We forgot how we ruthlessly betrayed Native Americans from New England to the Wild West. We forgot that we continued to enslave African people long after the British Empire stopped. In the name of religion, the testimony of a Jewish person who witnessed a murder was inadmissable in some state courts a hundred years ago. We have always been the vigilante.

Today, our economy is equalizing with the rest of the word and, I believe, the previous Bush presidency was the last gasp of the evangelical strangle-hold on U.S. politics.

Superman has indeed left the building.

The optimism of the country has nothing to do with the President (regardless of who he is or his skin tone) it's all about the media. During the Bush years we had a wacky lefty media that acted something like a cross between a child throwing a temper tantrum and a monkey throwing feces. They didn't care what they had to do they wanted us to feel as bad as they did. So in this 24 hour news and information culture we were taken out in woods and given their bad news and told to squeal like a pig while we took it. The problem is after 8 years of constant gloom and no fortress of solitude to escape to we started to believe it was as bad as they were saying it was.

Now come this election a man with darker skin is in office (let's face it this is all they cared about) and their liberal guilt is momentarily assuaded. We now find a media no longer acting like crap throwing monkeys but instead acting like hormone crazed bobbysockers back in Sinatra's prime. It's a sad combination of emasculating, somewhat amusing, and overall pathetic to see what a joke they have become. Now in a time where we really have nothing to be optimistic about we are optimistic because the media is constantly telling us how optimistic we are. It's hilarious in an "oh god we're doomed" sort of way.

Fact is in our current culture is overwhelmed with news and information and as such no one is more powerful than the empty headed models that recite the news to us ad nauseum and the aging hippies and liberal arts major producers who tell them what to say. We are a nation run by our media.

I grew up reading all the Superman comics, watched all the movies. All the movies missed in some way. Movies about comic book heroes do not need to be campy, cool, self-defacing, one of us.
Superman has never been presented as he is, a mythological story of good. He never lies, never kills, always sticks to his principles. Not just good, but he has principles that he always sticks to, always. And he finds a way to stick to his principles and win. He is strong in the way we all wish we were strong. When you just present the myth it will touch people at a deep core. Do the movie seriously. Good versus evil, moral dilemnas. Perhaps that is why it can't be written correctly. For Clark, for Superman, there aren't moral dilemnas.
Like in the batman movie, when challenged by the Joker, kill them before they kill you in the boats, they saw his choice as a false choice, and said no. Regardless of the personal cost, we will not become killers. That was a Superman moment

Maybe they should write Superman as an actual Republican. He's derided by the sophisticated intellectuals, which leads to his self-imposed exile. The minute trouble hits, all the cowardly liberals who hated him beg for his return.

Then when he does return and takes care of evil, the pinkies go back in the air and the hateful insults continue.

Lois Lane can accuse him of torture because he flew off with a crook who's afraid of heights.

Not to nitpick but "Superman" came out in 1978 and "Superman II" was in 1980 so they came out during the Carter years. During the Reagan years we got III, IV and "Supergirl", all of which are universally derided as bad. I really don't know that I would tie any of them to the political climate.

To me what killed "Superman Returns" is that Bryan Singer turned the Man of Steel into an emo beta male who whined about not fitting in and stalked his ex-girlfriend. Meanwhile Lex Luthor was even more of a campy joke than he was in the Christopher Reeve movies. It's hard to feel empathy for a character who is the most powerful being in the world and yet spends all his time feeling sorry for himself.

Give us a Superman who's bold and confident and face him with an enemy worthy of his power and I think the movie going public would respond favorably.

The reason "Superman Returns" failed was not because he wasn't dark enough or that he was too conservative. It failed because all the other characters were so flawed that the audience questioned why someone as good as Superman should care for them enough to save the world. What would he be saving them from? They may be physically saved, but morally and socially they continued to be doomed by their own bad choices. Second, it failed because the movie was slow and boring. It picked up near the end as an action story. By that time there was no interest in the characters because they were not likable.

One of the things that makes Superman popular is how he inspires (at least you got that correct). In this movie people weren't looking up to him, he was wanting to be more like the people. He didn't have confidence and therefore there was no reason to have confidence in him. The message of the movie, intended or not, is that the world doesn't need heroes or at least that they aren't worthy of having heroes. If that is the case, then there is no need for Superman. This doesn't have anything to do with the popularity of Superman, but more about the way Superman was written. He wasn't MY Superman and the characters weren't people I cared to be saved.

In a way, Batman has become Superman. He now cares about Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Its just that his reasoning and methods are much darker and questionable because if he was to do it any other way the world would make him Twoface.

"How exactly do people resonate with Batman or Wolverine? These are dark, sad, empty personas who's claim to fame is beating people up. If people think they relate with that then they are not just stupid, they are wrong. They are not as anti-hero as those two."

A few things.

First, most superheroes HIT bad guys. That's a superhero's usual response to evil whether he is idealistic (e.g., Superman) or not (e.g., Batman).

Second, people relate to Batman because of the senseless murder of his parents. A quick look at the news reveals often such acts of evils occurs in real life. So, it's not a stretch that moviegoers could sympathize with Batman directing his anguish and anger toward fighting ALL who prey on the innocent: muggers, crimelords, terrorists, corrupt businessmen, etc.

Thirdly, Wolverine is basically Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" with claws instead of a Smith & Wesson. So, the most popular of the X-Men is a dark power fantasy that's a carthartic release for some moviegoers instead of someone that they can relate to.

"If you want peope to sympathize with Superman you need to show how he lives his life. He is a man living in a world of cardboard and soap bubbles. He assigns himself a moral code that is difficult to keep up with.

Superman can't be challenged physically. He must be challenged mentally and emotionally."

Agreed. With rare expections like Kryptonite, Superman is immune to physical threats. However, some of the best stories about the Man of Steel focusing on how it is MORE heroic to fight evil according to clear standards. A great example was a comic in which Superman defeats a group of edgy "heroes" who seemed more cool and popular at first. (Interestingly, the characters Superman fought were an homage to a series, Authority, that was published by DC Comics.)

So, having principles can be cool as long as you emphasize that they are more worthwhile and edifying than going with the cultural postmodernism.

I love your message, but come on man, don't you have editors or at least a competent proofreader???

The man's name is Michael CAINE....with an 'E'.

I agree Superman is a conservative, but Obama is promoting anything in this country it is the antithesis of flag waving patriotism. Our president takes every opportunity to bash this country and "apologize" to the rest of the world. He claims to love his country but takes every opportunity to tell everyone how bad it is. How would that go in a marriage? If you said you loved your wife, but took every opportunity to put her down and agree with every critisism everyone else had about her, ask her how loved she would feel. And see if most people would think you really loved her. America is not perfect, but its not the horror that the Obama Administration seems to think it is.

....."The "malaise" of the Bush Administration is over, and our new president changed American attitudes just by showing up. Instantly we feel like waving a flag again -- for the most part. "

Are you nuts? This president is Jimmy Carter revisited...with a socialist twist and a sycophant media! Obama makes you want to wave the flag? What are you smoking? Oh...you may have been educated in our public schools, which of course would explalin everything. Please read, listen, and grow. Right now, you are a dim bulb. You have been taught lies. You can save yourself and thereby help your country. But first, you need to read, listen, and grow. Start today...!

How exactly do people resonate with Batman or Wolverine? These are dark, sad, empty personas who's claim to fame is beating people up. If people think they relate with that then they are not just stupid, they are wrong. They are not as anti-hero as those two.

I'm no fan of Superman, but neither am I a fan of Batman.

If you want peope to sympathize with Superman you need to show how he lives his life. He is a man living in a world of cardboard and soap bubbles. He assigns himself a moral code that is difficult to keep up with.

Superman can't be challenged physically. He must be challenged mentally and emotionally.

I think your right that Superman doesn't seem to resonate with the audiences as Batman. Both “Superman Returns" and “The Dark Knight" are great movies, but I like them for different reasons. However, the success of Nolan's Dark Knight as convinced some people that Superman has to be dark in order to succeed. I think the audiences has to understand that making Superman as dark as Batman is not true to mythology. Superman Returns try to reflect on the loss of innocence by the world being lost during his departure and then having him returns to symbolize the return of innocence. Maybe not that we no longer live in a Bush-era that people will become more optimistic. However, people are still jaded and are still struggling to regain their trust with the government. I guess only time will tell if we’ll see a Superman movie anytime soon.