I'm getting into it
Jun. 26th, 2006 12:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenI forgot to mention that ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
feiran and I watched an obscene amount of Lois and Clark recently, and that I've now bought all three collected volumes of the animated Superman television series. I'm working up enthusiasm for the big S (helped along by darkling1, who aids and abets fannishness of this sort quite terribly).
Then I find something like this and realize there are people ready to embrace Superman Returns no matter what and I have to wonder where they get their evidence from that something "new" in the Super-franchise is definitely going to be good. I didn't have faith that Batman Begins was definitely going to be good, only that it was very likely to. I wasn't making hyperbolic statements about it (did I say Christian Bale would be fabulous? Yes I did, but I based that upon the fact that, minus the serial killing, Bruce Wayne is the same character Bale played in American Psycho).
Most of the time, when something I'm a fan of is rumored to be adapted, I greet any and all news with wary skepticism. I dreaded the X-Men movie, even though X1 was surpassingly decent beyond my wildest (or lowest, rather) expectations. I agree with the author of the Superman Returns article that Singer is a good director, but I wouldn't say he was one of the best of our time. I can't make that call. So much of what makes a movie good or not can be attributed to the writers. Directors do a lot, don't get me wrong, but there needs to be a good story before the director can shoot it into brilliance. And what X-Men lacked in story, Singer made up for by being generally fair to his ensemble cast (something I think he's proven he does very well). X2 had a great story and I think that greatly improved what Singer had to work with.
So, while I'm heartened that Singer is so devoted to Superman Returns, I am more interested in the fact that the writing team from X2 went with him to draft the script. The purported plotline isn't one I would have suggested to jump-start the Super-movie-franchise part, but it's different enough and places enough faith in the fans and nonfans to follow along that, done well, I can see being spectacular. On the other hand, there is such a thing as biting off more than you can chew. While a more introductory movie ("Clark Kent, meet Lois Lane" style) might have been conventional and old hat at this point (is there anyone who doesn't know those names?), it might have behooved Singer and co. not to breeze past these introductions.
I don't always have faith that these gambits can work. I can identify as many reasons to be skeptical of Superman Returns as I was of X-Men: The Last Stand: change of directors and direction over the years--check. Casting changes for lead roles--check. Rumored expenses for special effects constantly skyrocketing--check. Studio imposing a release date upon the final crew despite the fact they weren't the ones in place when the original deadline was set--check.
Perhaps it is this writer's abudance of faith that I find disturbing. How can you just trust even great auteurs and actors with your fandom? Early reviews trickling in for Superman Returns run the gamut of fairly good to very good (yet to hear 'excellent' bandied about yet), which means...what? Several reviews I read of X-Men: The Last Stand were in that range, none falling out of it to match what I would have reviewed it (my review? "So bad a film I refuse to give it the moniker X3 because I don't feel it was a real ending to the franchise onscreen).
But what could I hear that would encourage me? Even when movies run smoothly, they can run afoul. The Matrix sequels were shot with cast and crew in near-perfect harmony, and sucked fairly hardcore nonetheless (i looked forward to the films, but I never assumed they'd be good; quite the opposite, I fretted a lot, and with good reason, it seems). Movies that live up to the hype--are they gone forever?
I would argue they don't. What it takes is a hint of inspiration. I wouldn't argue that Superman Returns is uninspired, only that it lacks that something that makes you watch trailers for it and go, "Huh. Well, damn, maybe...?" Superman ran with the tag line "You will believe a man can fly." And in that one simple sentence, set the tone for the piece. This was about belief--secular faith in heroism and ethics and morality and fair play in a world that hadn't seen much of it at the time. This was a breath of fresh air--a bit of the (incorrect) nostalgia for the good old days given new life in the promise of the future.
I think that Superman Returns hasn't made enough of an effort to sell its central theme with its advertising. From what I've read, the theme seems to be the cultural relevance of Superman--do we need him? Do we need heroes to solve our problems, and do we want them to? Humanity's weaknesses of laziness and fear suggest we would happily rely on a super-being to do our work for us; we are forever in search of a quick fix for our messes from Eve and the snake shouldering the blame for sin to our delusions about scaling back our efforts in Iraq. But do we need that for our own mysterious and ill-defined "wellbeing"? Is having Superman around "sparing the rod"?
Seeing Superman again, I found it interesting that Jor-El (did Marlon Brando ever not have that lisp?) argued that Kal-El shouldn't reveal himself to the world not because he would be in danger or even the ones he loved would be (which has been the driving motivation behind every superhero's creation of a secret identity and which is only lately come under review by some writers), but because humanity would expect him to do their work for them. Lois and Clark made a similar point with one episode we watched this weekend where a talent agent wanted to represent Superman...by selling him out to other cities. That makes a lot of sense--when one city gets an unexpected boon, others stick their hands out and ask for more (which is why funding for anti-terrorism measures was doled out to places so far beneath the notice of terrorists as to be ridiculous)--especially with my view of humanity as a collective. You gotta love Agent K in Men In Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." The man knew what he was talking about. Give people Superman, and they will abuse him.
It's a hard lesson to sell to the multiplex audience, but I really hope it remains the focus of Superman Returns as it's been suggested it would be. No one wants to be moralized at--well, okay, maybe some do, which, bravo, explains why people have embraced An Inconvenient Truth--when they went for superpowered fun. But recently this has changed. Batman Begins managed to sandwich in the distinct and important difference between fighting criminals and being a vigilante (as I said tofeiran and darkling1, I still don't see as Batman is any more or less a vigilante than Superman, and if Superman is not a vigilante...). Spider-Man 2 stressed that duty more than guilt or vanity is nobler path to motivating for change (i.e. being Spider-Man by choice is a greater good than doing it because of personal trauma, not that that will ever not be a part of that character). X2 poked about the subject of humanity--where does it start and where does it stop?--by showing that not all people who can claim the genetic title can claim the connotative one.
There has to be a message. I have enough faith that Bryan Singer has one in Superman Returns, but I am not sure if it will survive in the film itself or the flurry of advertising. Advertising is indicative of the project, too. The ads for Superman Returns hint at an isolation and aloofness without the same angsting about it that you get in your typical episode of Smallville (or that was the de rigeur for Lois and Clark). That's an interesting reading of the character, and one that's consistent with the other major ad for the film where Superman is looking down as Lois is looking up. There's a melancholic separation in the fact that his gaze avoids hers while hers is purposefully seeking his out. There are volumes to be written in that one poster, but, while I find it hauntingly beautiful (in ways that the other poster is cold and off-putting), it doesn't gel with what the television ads or the preview trailers have sold (other than the line "Where have you been?"). With the trailers on TV at least, there's a good deal more of the bumbling ha-ha-they-don't-know-that-Clark-is-Superman yuks. That's fine as a tension reliever or for a drama-com like Lois and Clark or Smallville, but it won't sustain the movie (just like jokes about spandex outfits didn't really challenge X1 to rise above the middling script).
This is why Fox Mulder was always my hero on The X-Files. As a science-bent geek gal, Scully should've been my role model, but I sympathized with Mulder. I, too, want to believe. The realist in me can't. It won't stop me from getting excited--and my recent saturation with Big Blue has left me plenty enthused for the movie tomorrow--but I won't have my hopes set high.
Superman Returns isn't the only movie to suffer from my lack of faith. I am thrilled that Pirates of the Caribbean comes out in two weeks--ZOMG WE MUST MAKE PLANS TO SEE IT--but I'm very wary that Johnny Depp will carry this movie as he did the last. That's not to say I don't think he can carry it (he can carry just about anything, even the creepy-yet-fun Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), just that I worry that is all the studio has relied on with the sequels (for certain, it's what jumpstarted them). I mean, you can count on Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly to strut and pose appropriately, but the film is made or broken on Jack Sparrow. That's a lot of weight for Johnny Depp to carry. Perhaps the cast/crew of Superman Returns can at least be assured that they will not be asked to shoulder that burden alone.
feiran and I watched an obscene amount of Lois and Clark recently, and that I've now bought all three collected volumes of the animated Superman television series. I'm working up enthusiasm for the big S (helped along by darkling1, who aids and abets fannishness of this sort quite terribly).Then I find something like this and realize there are people ready to embrace Superman Returns no matter what and I have to wonder where they get their evidence from that something "new" in the Super-franchise is definitely going to be good. I didn't have faith that Batman Begins was definitely going to be good, only that it was very likely to. I wasn't making hyperbolic statements about it (did I say Christian Bale would be fabulous? Yes I did, but I based that upon the fact that, minus the serial killing, Bruce Wayne is the same character Bale played in American Psycho).
Most of the time, when something I'm a fan of is rumored to be adapted, I greet any and all news with wary skepticism. I dreaded the X-Men movie, even though X1 was surpassingly decent beyond my wildest (or lowest, rather) expectations. I agree with the author of the Superman Returns article that Singer is a good director, but I wouldn't say he was one of the best of our time. I can't make that call. So much of what makes a movie good or not can be attributed to the writers. Directors do a lot, don't get me wrong, but there needs to be a good story before the director can shoot it into brilliance. And what X-Men lacked in story, Singer made up for by being generally fair to his ensemble cast (something I think he's proven he does very well). X2 had a great story and I think that greatly improved what Singer had to work with.
So, while I'm heartened that Singer is so devoted to Superman Returns, I am more interested in the fact that the writing team from X2 went with him to draft the script. The purported plotline isn't one I would have suggested to jump-start the Super-movie-franchise part, but it's different enough and places enough faith in the fans and nonfans to follow along that, done well, I can see being spectacular. On the other hand, there is such a thing as biting off more than you can chew. While a more introductory movie ("Clark Kent, meet Lois Lane" style) might have been conventional and old hat at this point (is there anyone who doesn't know those names?), it might have behooved Singer and co. not to breeze past these introductions.
I don't always have faith that these gambits can work. I can identify as many reasons to be skeptical of Superman Returns as I was of X-Men: The Last Stand: change of directors and direction over the years--check. Casting changes for lead roles--check. Rumored expenses for special effects constantly skyrocketing--check. Studio imposing a release date upon the final crew despite the fact they weren't the ones in place when the original deadline was set--check.
Perhaps it is this writer's abudance of faith that I find disturbing. How can you just trust even great auteurs and actors with your fandom? Early reviews trickling in for Superman Returns run the gamut of fairly good to very good (yet to hear 'excellent' bandied about yet), which means...what? Several reviews I read of X-Men: The Last Stand were in that range, none falling out of it to match what I would have reviewed it (my review? "So bad a film I refuse to give it the moniker X3 because I don't feel it was a real ending to the franchise onscreen).
But what could I hear that would encourage me? Even when movies run smoothly, they can run afoul. The Matrix sequels were shot with cast and crew in near-perfect harmony, and sucked fairly hardcore nonetheless (i looked forward to the films, but I never assumed they'd be good; quite the opposite, I fretted a lot, and with good reason, it seems). Movies that live up to the hype--are they gone forever?
I would argue they don't. What it takes is a hint of inspiration. I wouldn't argue that Superman Returns is uninspired, only that it lacks that something that makes you watch trailers for it and go, "Huh. Well, damn, maybe...?" Superman ran with the tag line "You will believe a man can fly." And in that one simple sentence, set the tone for the piece. This was about belief--secular faith in heroism and ethics and morality and fair play in a world that hadn't seen much of it at the time. This was a breath of fresh air--a bit of the (incorrect) nostalgia for the good old days given new life in the promise of the future.
I think that Superman Returns hasn't made enough of an effort to sell its central theme with its advertising. From what I've read, the theme seems to be the cultural relevance of Superman--do we need him? Do we need heroes to solve our problems, and do we want them to? Humanity's weaknesses of laziness and fear suggest we would happily rely on a super-being to do our work for us; we are forever in search of a quick fix for our messes from Eve and the snake shouldering the blame for sin to our delusions about scaling back our efforts in Iraq. But do we need that for our own mysterious and ill-defined "wellbeing"? Is having Superman around "sparing the rod"?
Seeing Superman again, I found it interesting that Jor-El (did Marlon Brando ever not have that lisp?) argued that Kal-El shouldn't reveal himself to the world not because he would be in danger or even the ones he loved would be (which has been the driving motivation behind every superhero's creation of a secret identity and which is only lately come under review by some writers), but because humanity would expect him to do their work for them. Lois and Clark made a similar point with one episode we watched this weekend where a talent agent wanted to represent Superman...by selling him out to other cities. That makes a lot of sense--when one city gets an unexpected boon, others stick their hands out and ask for more (which is why funding for anti-terrorism measures was doled out to places so far beneath the notice of terrorists as to be ridiculous)--especially with my view of humanity as a collective. You gotta love Agent K in Men In Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." The man knew what he was talking about. Give people Superman, and they will abuse him.
It's a hard lesson to sell to the multiplex audience, but I really hope it remains the focus of Superman Returns as it's been suggested it would be. No one wants to be moralized at--well, okay, maybe some do, which, bravo, explains why people have embraced An Inconvenient Truth--when they went for superpowered fun. But recently this has changed. Batman Begins managed to sandwich in the distinct and important difference between fighting criminals and being a vigilante (as I said to
feiran and darkling1, I still don't see as Batman is any more or less a vigilante than Superman, and if Superman is not a vigilante...). Spider-Man 2 stressed that duty more than guilt or vanity is nobler path to motivating for change (i.e. being Spider-Man by choice is a greater good than doing it because of personal trauma, not that that will ever not be a part of that character). X2 poked about the subject of humanity--where does it start and where does it stop?--by showing that not all people who can claim the genetic title can claim the connotative one. There has to be a message. I have enough faith that Bryan Singer has one in Superman Returns, but I am not sure if it will survive in the film itself or the flurry of advertising. Advertising is indicative of the project, too. The ads for Superman Returns hint at an isolation and aloofness without the same angsting about it that you get in your typical episode of Smallville (or that was the de rigeur for Lois and Clark). That's an interesting reading of the character, and one that's consistent with the other major ad for the film where Superman is looking down as Lois is looking up. There's a melancholic separation in the fact that his gaze avoids hers while hers is purposefully seeking his out. There are volumes to be written in that one poster, but, while I find it hauntingly beautiful (in ways that the other poster is cold and off-putting), it doesn't gel with what the television ads or the preview trailers have sold (other than the line "Where have you been?"). With the trailers on TV at least, there's a good deal more of the bumbling ha-ha-they-don't-know-that-Clark-is-Superman yuks. That's fine as a tension reliever or for a drama-com like Lois and Clark or Smallville, but it won't sustain the movie (just like jokes about spandex outfits didn't really challenge X1 to rise above the middling script).
This is why Fox Mulder was always my hero on The X-Files. As a science-bent geek gal, Scully should've been my role model, but I sympathized with Mulder. I, too, want to believe. The realist in me can't. It won't stop me from getting excited--and my recent saturation with Big Blue has left me plenty enthused for the movie tomorrow--but I won't have my hopes set high.
Superman Returns isn't the only movie to suffer from my lack of faith. I am thrilled that Pirates of the Caribbean comes out in two weeks--ZOMG WE MUST MAKE PLANS TO SEE IT--but I'm very wary that Johnny Depp will carry this movie as he did the last. That's not to say I don't think he can carry it (he can carry just about anything, even the creepy-yet-fun Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), just that I worry that is all the studio has relied on with the sequels (for certain, it's what jumpstarted them). I mean, you can count on Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly to strut and pose appropriately, but the film is made or broken on Jack Sparrow. That's a lot of weight for Johnny Depp to carry. Perhaps the cast/crew of Superman Returns can at least be assured that they will not be asked to shoulder that burden alone.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 05:00 pm (UTC)I don't buy that. I think the same applies as what you mentioned earlier in this post--the first Pirates succeeded for me because of its smart script. Yes it was funny, there was plenty of adventure, the acting was great, some astonishing special effects, but overall I was most wowed by the story. It was deeper than I expected from Disney, especially considering it was based on a theme park ride, it was clever and original, there was real emotion (which was sadly lacking from X-men: The Last Stand. If you look at most movies, perhaps specifically superhero movies, the best ones are always the ones about characters and their relationships, searches for identity and their place in the world, etc. I hadn't given much thought to the Superman Returns promotional campaign and how that might tie into the themes explored in the film, but I think you have some excellent observations and I can only hope that this story ends up being about people. It's also interesting because from what I can tell, Superman Returns is its own tagline and its own plot synopsis. If you equate Superman with America as people often do, you could imagine that the idealized America has been missing for a long time, and I only hope we can get it back; but in the meantime, does the world need us, or are we interfering where we aren't wanted? But that might be reading too much into it.
Also, re: vigilantes, I think the difference is usually one of public perception. People are happy to see Superman and want him around, but Batman creates terror, and people are pretty evenly split on Spider-man. Vigilante has a pretty negative connotation, even if they're all essentially the same because they operate outside (and above) the law.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 09:31 pm (UTC)You're correct. I've oversimplified. Pirates would have been a good romp without Depp's unique interpretation, but I doubt that even half so much of laughter would have been there for me without it. His Jack Sparrow is the poster candidate role for "getting into character" because there is something so innocent and unwinking about it that you are just absorbed by it. I should give more credit to the supporting cast--it must have been very difficult to keep a straight face across from Jack Sparrow.
I hadn't thought about what the absence of a tagline indicated, which is a serious oversight. Of course, the title is significant. Returns can be both welcome and forboding, which I think is the right tone to strike; Superman will be welcomed by some, but probably not by those who knew him best (who are in a position to resent his leaving on a personal level). It's a strange title, to be sure, one that conveys much more when I think about it than I garnered on first glance. I think I made the mistake of trying to frame "Returns" in the way, say, that Batman Returns used it, which was merely as another way of saying Batman II. I have to believe that Superman Returns means a lot more than that. And perhaps my inability to trust that it will be the outstanding film of the entire ouevre stems from the fact that Singer and co have (either on purpose or by omission) not weighted the word "returns" and left the nature of Superman's reception entirely to our imaginations. It might leave the film short of a "hook" (not that a Superman film needs one), but it does allow the audience to come at the thing without a bias for one interpretation or another. I did notice that none of the TV ads made explicit how Superman is received, either, which makes me fairly confident that this was the intent all along.
You're right, again, that the best superhero movies are the character-driven ones, which is why a tour-de-power-force like X-Men: The Last Stand sucked so hardcore. We got flashes of cardboard characters inbetween long exposition and insincere displays of emotion. There was no conflict, no internal conflict, and where there was inter- or intracharacter conflict (Rogue deciding to take the cure, Mystique being betrayed and then turning on Magneto, Logan stepping into Cyke and the Prof's shoes), it was brushed aside for the escalation to the final battle. Thinking about what I said above at work, just now, I am reminded of Spider-Man 2 where it is Peter who gets through to Doc Ock, not Spider-Man. Yes, it was a tad absurd that Pete kept pulling Spidey's mask off at the drop of a hat, but there it worked for me--that kind of thing is brilliant in all the ways Logan confronting and killing Phoenx was not.
And on the subject of vigilantes: I guess I was missing the fear element that is so crucial to Batman versus Superman. With Supes, the villains tend to assume they can work around his powers to outwit him if they can't outrun/outpunch/outlast him. With Bats, he's set himself up as this almost mythical force that could be anywhere at any time, and he's definitely too smart for the common criminal (which may be why Batman has the most eclectic and wonderful cast of villains over any other superhero ever). Superman is the man of the people, and they love him. Batman is a man of justice, and justice can be--and frequently is--terrible.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 05:24 pm (UTC)It's funny, one of the very first Superman stories (Action Comics # 6, 1938) was about a publicist selling rights to the Superman brand ... without Superman's permission. Since Superman was a wanted criminal at the time (for good reasons), they got away with it for a while. Then they tried to kill Lois, Superman beat the crap out of them and ... you know the rest.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 09:35 pm (UTC)It's not that I think the stories nowadays are better or worse, only that they explore the characters more and allow characters to be rather than always making them do. There's one brilliant episode of Batman: the Animated Series where Batman is more or less wallowing in selfpity because he thinks his efforts are in vain. Handled poorly, you have angst, but it was done well and ended up showing the character not to be impervious to the struggle that has enveloped him, and I liked it a lot. You need to care about the characters for them to matter.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 03:31 am (UTC)I wouldn't say "almost." They were written for kids (or so they thought) and by poorly paid, amateurish hacks. Characterization was next to non-existent, and you could only tell the heroes apart by their powers and the color of their underwear. While there were some gems, such as Plastic Man and the Spirit, most of the Golden Age comics make for painful reading.
Overall, I'd say the stories are better today, except in one respect: Back then everything was fresh and new, especially in Superman's earliest episodes. While Batman was (to some extent) derivative of costumed vigilantes like the Shadow and the Green Hornet, Superman was an almost completely original creation. In those early comics, you can see Siegel and Shuster exploring a wide-open field of possibilities for their character. Superhero comics weren't weighed down by decades of convention and backstory, as they are today. They didn't have the depth of today's characters, but that kind of giddy freshness is (for me) part of their charm.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 02:11 pm (UTC)And that's why I've fallen in and out of comics over the years. There are some gaps you can bridge, some you can't. I hate it when they try to clear the past by jumpstarting houses (DC and Marvel are terrible for this), but at times it's the only way to get into the stories again without the decades of previous story. And, occasionally, the jumpstart does something good, like Ultimate Spider-Man which was not only written well at the outset, but also modernized the story and drew Peter as Spider-Man as I would expect a teenage boy in tights to look (with only some exaggeration, but mostly as a lanky kid). That was really good while I read it.
But once you get bogged down in history, yeah, I think it loses its charm. Which is why I'm a big fan of comic-to-movie adaptations of things I never read because it gives new contextual basis for fandom that doesn't require access to a library and fifty hours of reading time.