Print Thread
Happy birthday Bryan Singer!
Pravus wrote: ChurchDoesTex - I didn't have a card or an address to send it to so the next best thing, the nicest thing, was to post that pic as my birthday present to him; it was the least I could do.

Of all the places on this site where Singer bashing is welcomed, you picked a thread wishing him happy birthday?? Nice.

1). I don't think Rosszul is a "Gentleman".

Yes, you're right. . . . .poor tact crosses gender barriers.

2). If you are going to refer to people as farm animals then I agree with you, the thread should be shut down.

Sorry, sheep was a bad adjective to use. A better description would be tactless-thread-hijackers.

I agree with many of the complaints against Singer, but this isn't the place to do it. I'm still surprised Steve hasn't shut it down. . . . . .

In an effort to get this thread back on track; Happy Birthday Brian Singer! Although Superman Returns will not have a sequel, your body of work is quite impressive and I look forward to your next film!
The Reeve/Kider experience was nowhere to be seen.

You had an obsessive, largely self-serving Superman and a bitter Lois Lane and an illegitimate child.

This next part may sound like me being argumentative, but don't worry because it's nothing personal:


I fail to see anything "obsessive" in his behavior, outside of the semi-creepy bedroom speech. If anyone was out of character, if was Lois for dragging her helpless son onto a strange yacht. Clearly a deus ex machina but probably the worst conceptual choice I've have ever seen.

I suspect the "illegitimate child" slur is just a cheap shot made by critics who (like me) just plain didn't like the movie. Do you have a problem with children born out of wedlock? Somehow, I doubt it bothers Superman fans very much. By and large we aren't a terribly puritanical group. You just didn't like the kid and don't want to delve into a big thoughtful analysis about it. You just scream "ILLEGITIMATE CHILD" and be done.

All this is overlooking the fact that some fans were clamoring for Clark and Lois to have a kid in the comics as far back as OYL. Maybe somebody heard them? You get what you deserve, it seems.
^^ OYL doesn't precede Jason's inclusion in the movie. The first OYL has a cover date of May 2006, which means it was released sometime early that year. SR was well into production at the time and -I think- toward wrapping up the shooting.

In fact, it's generally believed that largely because of SR was Chris included in the comics. Probably because the New Earth had started adapting a few things from the Donnerverse and the Action Comics run that Chris appears are the ones co-written by Richard Donner.

Just a heads up.
I?m a poor writer so all you thread Nazi?s, fight the urge to attack my poor grammar..Grin
The true strength of Superman for me is his moral fortitude. His uncompromising somewhat na?ve perspective that even the lowliest human has value. And is worth saving.
I mean, if I were in Supes boots, I would have thrown Lex in a volcano long ago. Lol. My point is All the Superman movies have strayed somewhat from this, but Superman Returns crossed the line.
Pravus wrote:
You had an obsessive, largely self-serving Superman and a bitter Lois Lane and an illegitimate child.

I agree with Pravus, and taking the line ?and the American way? out was just ridiculously un-superman like.
Superman only works if he acts and looks like Superman!. All of us are Superman fans. Don?t you guys think that its weird that we argue ascetics? His suit, personality and relationship with Lois. Its already been written about since the 1930?s.(by suit I mean color) our focus should be storylines and Heroic moments that we want to see portrayed on the big screen. Singer instead tried to re-write the actual character. For reasons I can only speculate about. From a comic book perspective I agree with johnnyfog a super kid could work,.. but Superman would have married her first. Or at least would have planned on sticking around after. Preparing to get married.

Yes, we have been through this countless times before, so I won't bother repeating the same old arguments. (We all have better things to do.) I must, however, put in my two cents and agree with ChurchDoesTex. I really think we could have all gotten along without the Singer attacks in this particular thread.
Johnnyfog, your posts confuse me. I'm not sure whether you like or dislike "Superman Returns." What really is your opinion on the movie? I'm just curious, I don't want to steer this thread off topic.
Johnnyfog, your posts confuse me. I'm not sure whether you like or dislike "Superman Returns." What really is your opinion on the movie? I'm just curious, I don't want to steer this thread off topic.

It's already off-topic. Someone should call the moderator to make sure they weren't in an accident and placed in a coma or something.

I did not like Superman Returns. It was a cliche-ridden, guilt-laced tribute to the late Reeve (and his wife), Donner, and a bygone era. Like I said before, its not always easy to replace an actor who is already established as the lead character, especially if he's dead. It's like posthumously recasting Vito Corlone. Singer didn't wish to replace Reeve, so he cloned him. It might have worked if he had at least updated the suit, the dialog, or the villain's modus, but the movie was a pale rip-off of S:TM. Worse, the performances weren't very memorable.

Edited by johnnyfog on 27/09/2008 09:30

Pravus wrote:
sbeamish wrote:

Yes, I would very much like to have the Clark/Superman/Lois relationship mirror that of the comics. It establishes how they truly feel for each other without us having to go through the whole "Lois loves Superman-Clark loves Lois/Is Clark Superman" merry-go-round again.

Actually, I was referring to the fact that, in your original post, you talk about a being with God-like powers hovering over the house of a married woman, and you underlined it. No such scene takes place in Superman Returns. In fact, I don't believe anybody in the whole flippin' movie is married.

As for this statement, I do agree with you. I'd like to see the Byrne reality introduced now. (Though I personally prefer a Superman who has the physical advantage 99% of the time.)
I think his point was that she was mother, living with her guy and providing a full and stable home for their kid. I don't think her actual marital status on the papers is anybody's issue.

I think his point was that she was mother, living with her guy and providing a full and stable home for their kid.

Which, of course, Supes didn't know until he stepped (or hovered) over the line and spied on them.

All he knew up until that point was that she had a child, was in a relationship and didn't want to discuss setting a wedding date, because "she doesn't like that question."
Nnnno, he had seen the happy family in full action at the Planet. Jason was calling them "mommy" and "daddy" in front of him. What better hint did he need? A DNA test, or a written report by the happy couple?
He was also on the receiving end of some rather gushing, incoherent questions from Lois: obviously sparked by the return of Superman.

This left him confused (and hopeful). He wanted to know how Lois really felt about him, which was absolutely his business. The problem is he went about discerning the truth in, as Pravus inferred, a cowardly, or immature, fashion.

A guy with cajones would have simply gone up to Lois (as Superman) and said, "So, are you happy now? Are Jason and Richard happy? And, what we had, is that over?"

Then, as a gentleman, he could have walked away. He could even tell her that, if things don't work out, "I'm always around." A gentleman can do that too. (I did it. Then I walked away. That was almost 21 years ago. ---And as of last May 27, we've been married for 19 years.) He can even look at and admire the lady he loves. That's okay, as long as he's also getting on with his life.

But a gentleman doesn't spy. That was wrong.

Edited by sbeamish on 27/09/2008 17:35

Then we're more or less in agreement. A direct question wouldn't have bothered anyone; not from what I've been reading all this time, anyway. But if he's going to go around the issue and play his cards like he did, the fact that he's playing with the stability of a child's life just makes him look worse.

Unless I misinterpreted Pravus' intention. Even so, that's where I stand.
All of this is a rather "nice" way to wish someone a happy birthday.

Church mentioned something about a tactless-thread-hijackers...

Aren't there already countless threads in place for discussing your dislikes, Pravus?
Or do you deliberately insist on forcing us to read the same complaints everywhere on the forums?

Edited by Hynad on 28/09/2008 22:28

Steve Wright
AHEM!!!!! *tapping feet* Topic, please.
Steve Wright wrote:
AHEM!!!!! *tapping feet* Topic, please.

We all knew this was coming, because we all know it's true. This thread is way off topic.

That's why, instead of creating a new thread, I've moved my part of this discussion to Pravus' Superman Returns discussion thread on the Superman movie board.

And while we're on the subject, shouldn't a happy birthday thread be on the miscellaneous board?

Edited by sbeamish on 30/09/2008 09:47

Jump to Forum: