Slashdot Mirror
Spider-Man 4 Scrapped, Franchise Reboot Planned
derGoldstein writes "Yesterday we discussed which sci-fi should get the reboot treatment next. If you consider Spider-Man as 'proper sci-fi,' then it would appear that's the answer. 'Sony Pictures decided today to reboot the Spider-Man franchise after Sam Raimi pulled out of Spider-Man 4 because he felt he couldn't make its summer release date and keep the film's creative integrity. This means that Raimi and the cast including star Tobey Maguire are out. There will be no Spider-Man 4. Instead, the studio will focus on a reboot script by Jamie Vanderbilt with a new director and a new cast.'"
Perhaps Raimi is too busy working on other projects.
They should probably leave well enough alone at this point. I personally don't want to go see *another* Spider Man movie, reboot or sequel, for a while. By while I mean years.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class, especially since I rule.
reboot to match todays youth preferences: think twilight in 3d.
Perhaps Raimi is too busy working on other projects.
Now, keep in mind that directors often have multiple projects that are in some form of production -- either stalled or pending development or in full swing -- but Raimi's up there with the busiest. If you consider him as both a producer and director (from IMDB):
In Development: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Shadow, The Familiars, Anguish, Untitled Sam Raimi Project, The Substitute, Sleeper, Evil Dead IV, Panic Attack, ArchEnemies, No Man's Land, The Transplants, Just Another Love Story, Burst 3D, Refuge, Monkey's Paw, The Given Day, The Dorm, Monster Zoo, The Wee Free Men and "The Taking"
And for what he's actually got in production includes The Evil Dead (2010), Dibbuk Box (2010), Warcraft (2011) and Priest (2010) where he's directing Warcraft and The Evil Dead -- two movies in sequential years. Yeah, I'd say he's staring down a rather full plate. I wish he would tackle some more original movies though like he did with Drag Me to Hell last year even though it wasn't the greatest, I'd rather see some originality and am happy he's washing his hands of a series that's run its course. But of course Sony wants to milk that cash cow ...
My work here is dung.
They can't wait years, or the rights revert to Marvel (Disney). They'd rather crank out anything to keep them.
It's rather annoying that so many franchises and movies are getting the reboot/rewrite treatment. It's almost like Hollywood is afraid that most multimillon dollar investments won't turn a buck.
Oh,wait....
BTW, I thought the Batman reboot was needed but am not ashamed to say I loved the first hulk (Eric Bana not Nick Cage). Hulk was never really about mass destruction,as awesome as it is to watch, but his inner conflict.
"Chinese Amazons, power armor, laser swords.... things just meant to be." - Shampoo, A Very Scary Bet
ah, finally. What all fans have been waiting for since the first spider man... MECHANICAL WEBSHOOTERS!
and these days they make it about 9.
I think it is partially the fact that they are using very young actors.
Of course, part of that is the comic book universe's problem.
Spider man was 18-26 for 40 years. In "reality", spider man in the comics should be in his late 60's.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
Typically, a hollywood reboot means, "Grittier and darker". Realistic violence and a strong adult theme. Peter Parker can't just be tormented by his parent's death and angst ridden/repressed by Mary Jane's repeated attempts to ignore him, he must be really conflicted--perhaps they'll have him kill Aunt May. Also, Toby MacGuire is just too nice. They need an actor who looks like he kills babies and stomps on puppies to play Peter Parker. (eyes-rolling)...
http://www.beanleafpress.com
'Reboot,' in Hollywood-speak, means "Forget cannon. Forget the comics. Forget everything. Get a focus group of our target demographic and ask them what they want. Get a committee of corporate hack writers to write what's going to sell." Hollywood is lazy and incredibly risk-averse. They do not create art, they create vapid, bland, and safe pablum for the masses. They take art, and turn it into raw sewage. The occasional good movie that slips out is an anomaly. They will then take that rare good movie and turn it into raw sewage in sequels. Hollywood wants to create the sure thing, the thing that everyone will pay to see. They don't want to take risks on stories no one's heard of before, so the will continue raping the corpse of any successful franchise until the fans turn away in horror. Then they will 'reboot' its desecrated corpse.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The first one wasn't bad, it just wasn't great. Worst casting choice was who they got to play Peter Parker. He's not a complicated character! He's a science nerd, yes. He's smart. He's also helplessly introverted. The introduction of the spiderman character to his life creates an alter ego. And this is where he cuts loose, being the irreverent, humorous wall-crawler of page and screen. That Toby McGuire guy could do mumbly and introverted but nothing else. This is not complex storytelling, folks. This is basic heroic mythmaking that goes all the way back to the paleolithic campfire. Hero good. Bad guy bad, but maybe have a beef we could sympathize with. Hero has a girl and he gets her in the end. And given the nature of the character, there should be plenty of laughs.
And for the sequels, all the stuff that was bad about the first movie was expanded upon. Spiderman 3 approached epic awful comic book movie status. Bad for the franchise but great for rifftrax.
The recent Iron Man movie was an example of how to do this. Perfectly crafted popcorn fare. Great characters, great lines, good 'splosions. Hope they don't screw the next one up.
Oh, and one quibble. So the Goblin guy from the first film had a super-serum and so became super-human. He can trade punches with super-human people because he's super-durable. I can buy that. Same goes for Goblin jr. But Doc Oc, he's just a dude with creepy robot arms. Even if those robot arms can kick eight kinds of ass, the guy they're attached to is still a flabby middle-aged science guy. Our friendly neighborhood spiderman is super-strong and a punch from him should cause disfiguring if not immediately fatal injuries. The guy's strong enough to hold up a frickin' cable car. His punch should be like from that freeway accident in Final Destination, where the log truck drops its load and this guy looks up just in time to see a 20 foot log come flying right through his windshield. We're talking a punch from a super-human should cause the head to shatter like a melon dropped from a six story building, a red mist everywhere, the now mostly headless body dropping while blood goes squirting everywhere. Ok, so that would completely screw the PG-13 rating but c'mon, seeing a podgy scientist shrug off those punches makes spiderman look lamer than Toby himself is managing.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
It's just getting ridiculuous now though. We're getting into 2nd and 3rd gen reboots where we're rebooting series that have already been rebooted. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if a Hulk reboot was announced next year.
How many times do we want to see the same freaking origin story?
Who wants to place bets that we'll see a Lord of the Rings "reboot" within 10 years?
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Each film made near a billion dollars. Raimi fought with the studios over the script for 3, which was terrible. So now the studio is forcing the same writer for 4, and gave him a contract to write future Spider-man movies as well. Let's keep the guy who wrote a TERRIBLE script, and punish a much-loved and successful director.
As Kevin Smith said, in Hollywood, you fail upwards.
I'm not suggesting that everything Raimi did was perfect, but when Spider-man 2 was released, many hailed it as the best superhero film of all time.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Mel Gibson?
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
That bugged me a bit as well with the spider-man movies. The web shooters issues are a issue in the comics and should have been left in for the movies. The web shooters failing/not working correctly can be funny/tragic and add to the movie like they do in the comics.
That would be way too implausible, even for the Spider-Man movies; a high school kid develops something that material scientists would take years to create in a high-tech lab if they could at all?
The comic reboots all the time with ret-con. It is part of the reason I don't collect comics. Color me crazy, but I want a story that I can read from beginning to end, that will form a coherent arc. Both TV and comics are mediums where you are intersted in getting to the next issue. Usually, people aren't intersted in telling a complete story.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Look, the owners want the billions in toy sales and McDonald's cups. The people in charge of the almost incidental film creation couldn't make it. The money lost delaying those toy sales a year is worth more than the profits of a hit.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Warner Brothers flat out said the next Superman needed to be dark and mimic The Dark Knight. Apparently they can't grasp that Superman and Batman are different characters.
Robert Pattison (or whatever that Twilight actor's name) is likely the next, emo, brooding, dark Peter Parker.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I'm thinking that we could have Spiderman 4 - The Revenge.
Then we could have Spiderman 5 - The Final Frontier.
Of course, Spiderman VI - Jason Lives, will be a little scary.
That could be the final movie.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
How much do you want to bet that Spiderman is going to be a broody, angsty teen who sparkles. He won't have been bitten by a radioactive spider, he will come from an ancient race of spider-men, and he is the true heir to the spider throne. Mary Jane will be some sort of mystical, prophesied Queen of the Spiders. There will, of course, be two breeds of spider-men, the web-spinners and the wolf-spiders, the first for pre-teen girls who like safe, clean looking guys, the second for pre-teen girls who like their guys scraggly and dangerous looking.
Oh God, excuse me, I think I've just made myself sick.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Will blame this on piracy in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Easily explained by the spider bite giving him some kind of insight that the scientists don't have.
Hey, if he can sense the immediate future and climb on walls why not?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
I'm more worried about JK Simmons! Who else could be as perfect a J Jonah Jameson?
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
God forbid they breach the cannon of Spider-Man.
"Reboot" means what it means, no more, no less. The last comic-book reboot was Batman Begins, a full-hearted plunge into the spirit and fiction of the original that terminated an increasingly lost and bewildered series of films.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Chuck Norris. grizzled, angry and full of kick ass.
Heh. Too true. Emo and vampires fits kid fantasies these days... As if they could screw up Superman any worse than they did with the last movie? Well, leave it to the WB to give it a go. Every comic character must have a dark psychoses, just brooding angst upon layer of angry rage. That's the generation we live in, the angry children, victims of their parent's success, because they couldn't pull more than a D in English so mom took the I-pod and cut off their internet connection. I can't wait for Marvel to release a "darker" revamped version of Power Pack ...
http://www.beanleafpress.com
Seriously, it's only got an uptime of 8 years, it doesn't need to be rebooted yet!
Spiderman, Spiderman
Agent told him it was in the can.
But the suits missed the scoop
Now his Raimi has flown the coop
Lookout! There goes your Spiderman!
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I'm one of the few that rather liked the last Superman film. The major problem was a lack of action, and a ridiculous plot hole at the end (landing on the kryptonite land mass nearly killed him, but later he can lift a giant kryptonite continent with no problems).
I think Singer absolutely loves Superman, and did the character justice. He is a giant boy scout who feels ultimately alone. Superman's weaknesses extend past Kryptonite. Superman's powers can't help with Louis leaving him. But in having a kid, he suddenly doesn't feel as alone.
The Donner Superman films dealt with Marlon Brando saying goodbye to his son, who he sends to Earth. I thought Singer's Superman did a good job of integrating Brando's father/son arc.
People forget but Singer's first X-Men film didn't have good action. The second was CONSIDERABLY better. I would have liked to see Singer get a second shot at Superman.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
If you read into these articles, Raimi walked because the studio wouldn't go along with the Vulture story, and specifically Raimi wanted John Malkovich to play the Vulture. And he wanted Anne Hathaway to be the Vultress. I am not making this up.
The studio told Raimi he didn't need an expensive star like Hathaway in that role, and they didn't want Malkovich and they didn't like the Vulture as the bad guy at all.
Now consider how Raimi has approached bad guys so far. Doc Ock? He was a good scientist, distraught over his wife's death, and the tenatcles took over his mind. Harry Osborn? Tormented by his father, instead of becoming the Hobgoblin he turns back to good. The Sandman? Just a father trying to redeem himself to his family.
Even Dafoe as the Green Goblin was obviously mentally ill. He was mad/evil, yes, but almost sympathetic. He really did get his company taken away by the corporate board, it really was all his genius, and the military was choosing an inferior technology due to politics. In some respects, he was kind of justified to get that pissed off.
Now imagine how Malkovich's Vulture would have come off? Probably just a sex freak with Anne Hathaway as the Vultress. Maybe he's bad because he was abused as a child. Maybe his mind was taken over by a Hippie played by John Cusack. So many possibilities.
In any case, it would have probably been the most way out there movie, really for the hardcore comic crowd and probably would have totally lost the under 21 crowd.
i agree with every single one of your points, and yet fail to find what the problem is. we're talking about ENTERTAINMENT. empty, pointless, useless, entertainment. of course, with that statement i am precluding the possibility of something transformational. the original star wars, for instance, is a silly space opera, and yet, including for me, its been a source of much love and awe
however, as it has degraded into a weekly animation on the cartoon network with a IM-speak trash talking teenage padawan, i find i can't hold that against lucas, not even his 3 prequels. why?
because nothing lasts forever. you fall in love with something, and it changes. there's no way around this. getting frustrated about this fact of life will not change this fact of life
a lot of fan boys need to come to grips with the fact that nothing lasts forever, that everything degrades in quality over time, and that's just the way it is, and always will be
and that hollywood, milking the cow, rebooting a desecrated corpse, is business as usual, and always will be. you need to move on and find love for some other scifi franchise when your much loved series jumps the shark. railing against the world when that happens is just pointless sour grapes and wasted effort on your part
stop hating hollywood. just realize what is inevitable in this world and realize when it is time to move on
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
(This space left intentionally blank)
It's one of the reasons I enjoy anime TV series and manga. Many times they have a single story, they tell it, and it's over. Just look at things like Cowboy Bebop, Full Metal Alchemist, etc.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
It goes deeper than that.
Removal of mechanical web shooters (and Peter's bug/trackers that key to his "spider sense") are examples of the shift of Spider Man's portrayal of science as a neutral force used by both good and evil, to an evil corrupting influence that only those of exceptional character can withstand.
In the comics (and 60's TV show) Peter is a budding scientist that becomes a superhero. His foes that use science/technology are already well on the path to "evil" long before they encounter the circumstances that turn them into supervillains. Science is portrayed as a neutral force that can be harnessed by good and evil alike.
In the movies, Peter is just a "nerd" who gets corrupted by science, and it's only by indirectly causing the death of his uncle that he gains the moral character to overcome the corrupting influence of science and become a force for good - although it's a battle he has to wage constantly. His foes? They are all good-natured individuals that become evil only because of the corrupting influence of science. Some are able to eventually fight the evil of science and become good again, and prove they are good by sacrificing themselves at the last minute.
I sincerely hope that any "reboot" of the series will bring back the tone of the comics.
Not only that, but it was probably the first Superhero live action movie since the first Superman: The Movie to be pretty good...
After all the sucky superhero movies, Spiderman showed us you can actually do these things "right," leading to the newer Batman, Superman, and even a MUCH better Hulk movie, and Iron Man.
I'm not a huge comic fan, so I know those hardcore fans whine about things not being exactly right (and hey, keep whining, I've got no problem with that), so I pretty much enjoyed them.
But Spiderman was done right... even 2 and 3 were pretty good, so I think this is pretty sad.
Stupid, sexy Flanders.
Dang, I have mod points, but I just can seem to find the +1 Scary mod.....
I sincerely hope that any "reboot" of the series will bring back the tone of the comics.
Don’t let James Cameron direct it.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
What bugged me more was people's reaction to the lack of mechanical webshooters from the new movies. Since he was bitten by a spider what's wrong with acquiring it as a power in the movies. I'm a pedantic person but this detail is so minor that I don't understand why people care so much.
Jonathanjk.com
The best take I've seen on Kryptonite is the early Byrne take.
Superman is really a world class telekinetic (and general psionic*) and his problems with Kryptonite are mostly mental. Thus when he really has to, he can react differently to Kryptonite.
Alternatively, the continent was synthetic Kryptonite and differed in some crucial way from real Kryptonite.
If you think about lifting a continent without it breaking apart, the telekinetic angle looks better and better.
*
Superstrength, flight, invulnerability- TK.
Heat/Cold breath, pyrokinesis.
X-Ray Vision: Clairvoyance.
Superhearing: Clairaudience.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
While it's true that, sometimes, a character idea needs a reboot, there is a *reason* I hate reboots. . .
I hate having to slog through essentially the same story again. I want *new* stories. Not the same basic Spiderman, Superman, or Batman story 'remixed'.
The recent Star Trek 'reboot' was nice in that, at least, they basically presented a brand new story. If companies insist on rebooting things, I hope they realize they don't have to take us back through the same 2 or 3 *tired* stories all over again. I really don't care if I never see another Batman movie which has The Catwoman, The Joker, or The Penguin, ever again. I want *other* Batman stories.
Not to mention, Supes never lifts anything with TK once that I've seen. And if his powers were purely mental and simply believing in them, then he wouldn't be powered by the sun.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Peter Porker.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
If he really got that particular trait from his spider bite, rather than develop it, he'd be slinging web from his butt.
I found the last Superman incredibly dull. It wasn't the actors, who did a reasonably good job (Kevin Spacey did a good turn as Lex), it was just a dull film.
I recently rewatched Superman I and watched the Donner cut of Superman II, and I have to say they were infinitely better paced films than the last one (I won't even discuss III or IV, talk about milking a franchise into the dirt).
The first one is still one of the best superhero films ever made, and the villains in Superman II still kick serious ass. General Zod is one scary f***ing dude. The Donner cut is a lot better because the scenes with Brando are far more poignant than the Lester version.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
entertainment FOR YOU must be multi-layered. good for you. but the population in general has no such prerequisites. therefore, it makes perfect business sense for hollywood to pander to the the population in general, and ignore you, the much smaller marketplace
hollywood exists to make money, not to meet your narrow criteria
and please don't conclude that your tastes are somehow superior to the general population. you just have rigid needs. it could just as easily be said that you are harder to please, which is no sign of superiority at all, simply rigidity and ossification of mind
populism rules. in fact, it is the most difficult of entertainment efforts to make that which appeals to many, rather than a small narrow group of interests
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I agree with your general point, but I'd like to point out that X-Men was 2 years ahead of Spiderman, and is more or less what started the superhero revival.
--Obyron
I don't recognise most of that, but what I didn't recognise smells an awful lot like Twilight, which I wouldn't recognise because I haven't seen...
You recognize a concept you aren't even familiar with by its smell?!
My God! That is a power only the Wolf Spider clan has! You must be the ChubbyHaidude, the Chosen Spider Shaman.
The enemies of Democracy are
We're here at the premiere of the new Spider-Man movie, where we've secretly replaced Toby Maguire and Sam Raimi with Folger's Crystals. Let's see what the audience's reaction is....
"Power corrupts...". The sentiment is not new; its consequences have been the subject of stories for literally thousands of years. The notion of someone struggling with the consequences of having gained power is certainly not new.
It is only in the last hundred years or so that science has been perceived as a source of such power. As far as such stories are concerned, it has no meaningful distinction from political power, religious power, an aristocratic title, or a gun. All are effectively neutral in and of themselves; the good or evil of their use is determined by the wielder. But we have a cultural perception of such things as tending towards evil. As science is perceived increasingly as a source of power, it will inevitably be seen as having an increased potential for evil.
Given that power is the ability to impose one's will on others, I think that this tendency is a good thing. It is somewhat ironic, though, that Hollywood is telling such a story.
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
This has been explained many different ways in how Parker gets his web shooters. In some versions Parker is really smart and develops them him self, in others he not as smart but the spider bite leaves something in him that helps him develop them. In another version the shooters were developed by his father just before he died and Parkers new spider senses led him to modify them to shoot webs. Internalizing the web shooters was always explained as time saving sacrifice. It was just easier to spend 2 minuets having Parker discovering this ability and using it opposed to spending 20 minuets showing him designing and building web shooters and explaining why he decided to make them and how he even could. I've personally always enjoyed the physical aspect of the web shooters, either the drama of any empty shooter at the wrong time or watching spidey mixing a new formula to make his webs stronger or more elastic. A favorite is from the original cartoon when Spider-man adds asbestos to his webbing.I can't remember why but it was to either make it fire proof or electrically non conductive. Spider-man, giving the villains cancer one web at a time.
Then we will call it Spiderman Rebooty.
Damn it Mary Jane! we're all out of toilet paper!
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
According to this article, the Zebra tarantula has spinnerets on their feet, so maybe the spider that bit Peter was derived from one of those.
Who wants to place bets that we'll see a Lord of the Rings "reboot" within 10 years?
Another LoTR adaptation in 10 years is a remake, not a reboot. Unless if you're thinking to redo the storyline or characters...
blade runner was produced through the ladd company (warner bros)
2001 was MGM
sideways was michael london, straightup hollywood producer
all of your charlie kaufman fanboy stuff: synechdoche, adaptation, being john malkovich, eternal sunshine, adaptation... hollywood produced/ distributed. charlie kaufman is straightup hollywood, he lives in pasadena and has toiled in hollywood long before his fame
brazil is the brits and terry gilliam, so i'll give you that
lost in translation is goddamn sofia coppola, which is about as nepotistically hollywood as you can possibly get
why are you such an angry little man with such a huge chip on your shoulder, yet coupled with such a poor understanding of the subject matter you inject your uneducated superiority into? you do understand the idea of production and distribution, don't you?
by your list of movies, your taste is solidly mainstream. it has that obvious stink of "i'm a suburban wannabe who buys what hollywood has marketed as 'upscale'", but this is a personality issue, not an aesthetic mark of exception. you know, for suburban douches who imagine themselves alternative, but are just another marketing segment that the hollywood dvd aftermarket panders to. sorry kid, but your tastes solidly describe you as middle of the road. it sounds like you hit the goddamn netflix "suggest other movies like this one" to make your list. you forgot "american beauty" lol
i would be worried if you responded to my challenge with a bunch of japanese or korean or indian fare, you know, clearly not hollywood, clearly intelligent, vibrant, and utterly alien to hollywood mass-produced stuff
start in japan kid. judging by your style of taste in hollywood fare, i suggest something like "love exposure" from the genius sion sono, or "fine, totally fine", which you will love if you liked sideways
then get on over to korea. see something like the sublime "M", which rivals kubrick at his best in terms of being transcendent, or then anything by mark chanwook (probably outside your tastes though). and there's always plenty in europe
there are people who are genuinely counterculture. then there are people who have pretensions and a false sense of superiority. this is a character weakness, not a mark of aesthetic exception. you're a strange little suburban angry douche. i hear the voice of squidward in spongebob squarepants when i read your comment
oops! sorry if that's too "idiocracy" a reference for you! thinking of a children cartoon character? obviously i am not a intelligent culture vulture like yourself!
lol! cute little angry man
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Are you kidding me? The Spiderman movies are about a freak who dresses up in a spider suit, shoots webs out of his wrists, and saves the world! If you didn't have to suspend disbelief to watch even a minute of any of the 3 Spiderman movies then you need to see a head doctor.
Time makes more converts than reason
At least twilight didn't take an existing character and castrate him like spiderman 3 did.
Ahem...
Emo sparkly vampires
Vampires don't sparkle in sun light, they burn. Taking away one of the most defining characteristics of vampires is sort of like castrating them.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
According to the plot of that film, Lois Lane lied to her husband, telling him that the kid was his when it wasn't, married him almost immediately after Superman departed and kept the fact from him that he had a child when he did come back. What a fucking cow. Meanwhile Superman abandoned her almost immediately after getting her knocked up for approximately five or six years without actually telling her where he was going or that he'd be away for some time. When he returns to Earth, his first act is to pick up his dogs favourite ball pretending to be about to throw it for him, then hurls the ball off into the stratosphere, leaving the dog looking mournfully after it. Pretty shortly after that, Superman starts trying to pick up where he left off with Lois (and lets also keep in mind that this is a woman he's willing to get pregnant but never tells her he's been stalking her in his day life for years). Lois obliges him, ditching her husband (a loving, supportive, father and husband who not only is rich, successful, but played by fucking James Marsden - I mean what a fucking ungrateful, unappreciative bitch she is). Meanwhile Superman uses his super powers to variously spy on them through their walls, listen to their private conversations and, by the end of the movie, let himself into their house to spend quality time with their kid without the parents knowing. Piece of shit! The only decent person in the film is Lois's husband who despite having no special powers at all, gets in a plane and fucking flies out to sea to rescue her from Lex Luthor whilst Superman know's she's there but is busy flying around the city being a hero. Yeah, points for ethical mathematics, Superman, but shouldn't Lois be more appreciative of the guy who put her first?
None of this would bother me if it weren't for the fact the film is utterly fucking oblivious to the reprehensibility of its main characters. The film takes the attitude of "Superman does it so it must be good" and presumes the audience goes along with them.
Man, I'd prefer my children to watch any amount of Heath Ledger murdering people with pencils but with the film's background message of "people can be good and you don't have to be corrupted by fighting evil", than half an hour of Superman smugly sneaking into people's houses and undermining marriages because he's "the good guy".
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
You're a bit mistaken.
Lois is genuinely shocked that her son displays super powers. The real key is understanding this is a direct sequel to Superman 2. In that film, Superman becomes a normal mortal, sleeps with Lois, but then wipes her memory at the end.
Lois has no memory of sleeping with Supes. Why would she assume it is his kid? She is a single gal with no memory of a romance with Supes, hooks up with a guy, gets pregnant, and has no reason to assume the kid is someone else's.
The fucked up part is that Supes screwed Lois and then wiped her memory in part 2. Shouldn't there be a scene in Returns where she goes to the hospital and says "I have no memory of us having sex? Did you rape me?"
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Okay. So Lois had her memory wiped by Superman after sleeping with him. That lets her off the hook a bit, but makes Superman even more of a nasty piece of work. But like you say, there's no reference to this in the film so people like me who don't know the previous films (and I'd imagine the kids that are a primary audience for this film mostly get included in that) have no way to know this. Still, even allowing this, she hooked up with James Marsden quickly enough that she thought it was his child. So they surely must have been seeing each other during the events of when she slept with Superman. Okay - I suppose it's possible she wasn't. She gets her memory wiped, goes out meets this guy, they have sex and 'whoops - I'm pregnant'. Okay, she gets a pass on that (and bonus points for James Marsden for doing the honourable and marrying his one-night stand). Her behaviour during the movie isn't exactly virtuous. But still, thanks for clearing that up.
I'm taking your word for this, mind you. I'm not being distrustful. But I remember Luthor waving the green rock at the kid and seeing the kid flinch and him asking whose kid this is. That happens after the child has displayed his powers, does it? The first thing I remember of that is him throwing a piano at someone which I thought was later? I've probably missed something. All I really remember from the film was Superman's behaviour, the utter stupidity of Luthor's plan (I'm going to kill millions and then go into real estate) and that the overall message of the movie seems to be that you can beat any problem with brute force if you just pull a constipated face whilst your lifting the continent you're allergic to into space.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I think Luthor suspects the kid, but it has been a while since I seen Returns.
Singer said publicly that he was making his film as a direct sequel to Superman 1 and 2, but not really considering 3 and 4. Those movies are fairly old, and if you didn't see them, I guess it wouldn't be pretty clear where the kid came from, or why Lois didn't know.
Superman 2 is a great film, and held up (even today, though it is a little slow by modern standards) by some as the best superhero film of all time. I'll take Dark Knight, but Superman 2 is worth watching at least once. I assume most geeks have seen it.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
and a complete 180 from your comments above like the one where you cite 'idiocracy'
"I, on the other hand, respect people, and feel they can handle art that isn't pre-digested for them"
no, you, on the other hand, are so condescending and patronizing you can't even see it in your own words, where you prejudge what they like as something that you see a need to be improved upon, based on nothing but your own self-certain sense of knowing what is "better" for them. what is "better" for them, apparently being your own arbitrary likes. this is a pure definition of being self-centered, superior minded
charlie kaufman is awesome, and i loved eternal sunshine and have it on dvd and have enthused about it and suggested college aged visitors watch it with me and they loved it. not because i was improving them, condescendingly, as you portray your noble one man crusade, but just because i wanted to share with my equals. i don't think my love for that movie is the basis upon which to judge what other people like and i don't have a need to "show them the light". you do. you do because you have a false sense of superiority based on nothing but your arbitrary proclivities for hollywood mass marketed alternative movies. you're a fucking poster boy for self important small minded suburban rec room elitism
i realize that the complete aboutface and backtracking on your own statements in your comment immediately above is about as close as i am going to get with you admitting you are wrong, and that i have made my point, so whatever
adios! sorry i can't say well met, self-centered, patronizing little man
xoxoxoxoxox
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Vampires don't sparkle in sun light, they burn.
Dracula didn't.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I think all the old and Next-Gen Trek movies had at least one really serious flaw.
Yeah, not enough Tribbles.
It's well known that Superman is a dick.
Okay. So Lois had her memory wiped by Superman after sleeping with him.
Yeah, the events of Superman 2 were really messed up. Lois finds out Clark is superman, he gets rid of his powers to stay with her, they sleep together, other Kryptonian survivors appear and they're all evil ("Kneel before Zod"), so Superman has to go regain his powers and fight them.
All the while, Lois gets kidnapped because Luthor knows Superman has a thing for her, but she still tries to protect Superman (and his secret, she knows his secret identity at this point) with no regard for her own life. To repay her for this, Superman erases her memory at the end of the movie. I'm sure he's telling himself it's for her own good, but we all know that's bull. Luthor knew to kidnap her, and he wasn't even aware of how far their relationship had gone. She's still in danger, just for being the reporter that knows Superman the best.
But I remember Luthor waving the green rock at the kid and seeing the kid flinch and him asking whose kid this is. That happens after the child has displayed his powers, does it? The first thing I remember of that is him throwing a piano at someone which I thought was later?
The piano did happen later. Luthor waved the Kryptonite for the same reason he had Lois kidnapped in Superman 2. He knows the two have a relationship, he's just not sure how far this has gone. He also figured that the kid is old enough to have been conceived before Superman went away, which is why he asks about the kid's age.
All I really remember from the film was Superman's behaviour, the utter stupidity of Luthor's plan (I'm going to kill millions and then go into real estate) and that the overall message of the movie seems to be that you can beat any problem with brute force if you just pull a constipated face whilst your lifting the continent you're allergic to into space. :(
The movie sucked. Bryan Singer was obviously a fan, but he's a fan of the wrong Superman. The early post-crisis Superman is the interesting one. His powers are nerfed somewhat, which means he's actually in danger of dying from things other than Kryptonite. He considers his identity of Clark Kent to be his real identity, and Superman to be the fake one. That makes him easier to relate to, and it means the Clark persona isn't an idiot who is constantly messing up everyday tasks. The Lois and Clark TV series really is what got the closest to a good live-action interpretation of Superman (and that's saying a lot, because it really wasn't that good). Everything else has sucked.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
The operative word was "revival." Superhero movies had been toxic waste after the Batman franchise was run into the ground.
--Obyron
Well, I've never bought a comic book in my life, and I care about relative believability.
It's not just a problem in comic book movies. Every movie you go in needing to accept some (often ludicrous) premise. Heaping coincidences and other unlikelinesses on top of that premise weakens the movie.
For instance, I watched "Untraceable" the other night. It asks you to accept the title premise, that somehow this particular killer's web feed is really untraceable, despite it being easily routed by the internet DNS servers (not to go into details, here, but they pseudo-explain this by saying he's broadcasting his source feed to a bunch of botnet drones, and the DNS entries re changing the one web site URL to a different drone with every request, and for some unexplained reason they can't just bring one of these drones in to see where it is getting it's feed from). Since it's the title of the movie, and I already groaned when I saw that in the trailer, I accepted it. And since it's a serial killer movie, I also accepted that the killer had some unnatural set of skills at hacking bits and hacking people. That's premise. And it's a whopper of a premise, already pushing the boundaries of acceptability. Note: spoilers of a bad movie follow. But then the writers throw in every possible serial killer movie cliche coincidence: the FBI agent who is meticulous about everything lets her daughter surf the net and download apps from "friends" to run on her (presumably secured) home machine which also happens to have all her FBI files sitting on it unprotected; the other FBI agent engaging in blind Internet dates gets targeted by the killer right when he happens to figure out the key to the case; said FBI agent calls heroine but instead of telling her the key to the case tells her he'll tell her later, right before he is snatched by the killer, and the "key" turns out to be two words which he "blinks" in morse code to her; another FBI agent who knows morse code sees the internet-dating agent blinking and "knows" that left eye is dot and right dash so he can get those two words written down .... blah blah blah. At this point, you've blown past the premise and the movie is schlock.
As a general rule, since you asked, a good non-absurdist story will have a central premise of a single unlikely event, perhaps two (kid bitten by spider gets special powers; world is going to end in 2012), and other unlikely events either follow naturally from that one unlikely event or spring from the same cause as the first unlikely event. In today's movie, it is rare for that premise event not to be spelled out in the trailer, so you are guaranteed that the folks who are sitting in the seats have either accepted the premise or are placating someone who accepted the premise. Once the premise has been accepted, additional unrelated unlikely events (various other superheroes/villains spawning due to unrelated accidents; guy happening to come across all the information the 2012 guy comes across AND happens to survive everything even though the information he came across played no part in that, etc) weaken the story, bringing the viewer back "out of" the story.
Again, you don't need to be a comic book geek to care about this. It's a central characteristic of all good non-absurdist writing, that aside from the premise, all facts are internally consistent and believable.
"Absurdist" writing (say, just about anything from Chuck Palahniuk) is the exception, here, as the unlikeliness of what follows is the entire point.