Superman Returns...4 stars

[LouCipherr]

I thought you liked the DAWN remake? LOL I did, but that doesn't mean it had ANY business being remade now did it?

[bassman]

Superman 1 & 2 were enough... 3 & 4 killed the franchise. Batman on the other hand wasn't quite dead, and just needed tweaking to repair it, and Nolan did just that! Singer will not be able to fix this severely damaged Superman Franchise. By just ignoring 3 & 4. He should have re-started the franchise like Nolan did for Batman. I never figured that you were the kind of guy to automatically hate a flick without seeing it first.... You should at least give it a chance. From the clips that I've seen on the net....it could turn out great. That Routh guy seems like he was a perfect choice for Kent/Supes....

[DjfunkmasterG]

I am not usually that type of person, but I just don't have any interest in a new superman movie. If I choose to go check it out and I like it... I will post on the board so i can eat my huge amount of crow. I did, but that doesn't mean it had ANY business being remade now did it? Oh oh oh... here we go! Alas poor Yorick... It wasn't a remake. It was a re-invisioning. So sayeth the director, so sayeth the flock.

[bassman]

So sayeth the director, so sayeth the flock. Now if only we could get people around here to believe that when it comes to the whole "Timeline" thing in Romero's "of the Dead" films....

[DjfunkmasterG]

You mean that whole discussion about Day coming after Land, and vice versa.

[bassman]

You mean that whole discussion about Day coming after Land, and vice versa. exactly... As if it matters, anyway...

[DjfunkmasterG]

I just made a reply to that topic. So I can consider that topic closed.

[Tullaryx]

Im abit tepid and ambivalent towards Superman as a hero when portrayed pre-Crisis, but from what I've read of the rough script that went around which Singer based this film on then it owes some to what Donner created with the first two Supes film, but also to some of the post-Crisis stuff that made Superman more complicated. I think the fact that he's an alien is interesting twist for me. he's an alien who actually values the virtues and principles of all that's good in humanity and yet sees the people he tries to protect ignore those very same ideals. This is a character who practically has the power of a god in his hands yet holds back because he knows he could destroy everything and everyone if he ever decide to. I still prefer Batman over all comic-book characters, but Superman does have his place and if this film does well and Time-Warner greenlights a sequel then I wouldn't mind it if they made sure to pick the appropriate villain not named Luthor: Brainiac, Doomsday, Metallo, Darkseid.

[LouCipherr]

Oh oh oh... here we go! Alas poor Yorick... It wasn't a remake. It was a re-invisioning. So sayeth the director, so sayeth the flock. The flock? of what, sheep? that would be appropriate now wouldn't it? yeah, yeah, yeah - call it whatever makes you comfortable. Bottom line is, the movie was remade, just in a different way, so bite me.

[Tullaryx]

I usually don't go into the whole remake/reimagining/retool/reboot discussion since it's a moot point to debate. Hollywood will make them despite what people here and in other sites dedicated to films may want to harp and rail on it. But this Singer production doesn't fall under any of those definitions since he is not re-explaining anything or even redoing a past story in a more modern setting. He's pretty much taking up the franchise from the end of Superman II (kneel before Zod!) to its next logical conclusion and thats him leaving Earth to search for his alien heritage. Something only barely used as a story-arc in the comics. Really, the GAR dead films has more in common with remakes and reimaginigs than Singer's Superman film.

[DjfunkmasterG]

How do you remake something, but make it different? Isn't the point of a remake to do it the same, the exact same? The act of remaking. Something in remade form, especially of an earlier movie or song. Taken from Websters dictionary on my desk at work. So does DAWN 2004 count as a remake? Not really.

[Tullaryx]

How do you remake something, but make it different? Isn't the point of a remake to do it the same, the exact same? The act of remaking. Something in remade form, especially of an earlier movie or song. Taken from Websters dictionary on my desk at work. So does DAWN 2004 count as a remake? Not really. Which is why Snyder and company calls it more of a reimagining.

[bassman]

Batman on the other hand wasn't quite dead, and just needed tweaking to repair it, and Nolan did just that! Uhhhh buddy, did you happen to see Joel Shumacher's "Batman Forever"? Or even worse(much worse, actually), "Batman and Robin"? I got to thinking about this and just had to ask how you could make such a ridiculous comment ....

[LouCipherr]

Taken from Websters dictionary on my desk at work. So does DAWN 2004 count as a remake? Not really. Then why is it called "Dawn of the Dead"? That makes no sense. If that's the case, then wouldn't the (remake or reinvisioning? what a bullsh*t word, "reinvisioning" - what the hell ever) Psycho have been the only "true" remake ever made since they did even the camera angles and scene cuts exactly as the original, only with different characters? I don't really care - and it's up to the fanatics and fan boys to worry about - I was just curious as I wasn't around for the (obvious) bickering that went on about this when it was announced/came out, I just think people complaining over symantics like that is pretty childish, but whatever floats your boat.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Uhhhh buddy, did you happen to see Joel Shumacher's "Batman Forever"? Or even worse(much worse, actually), "Batman and Robin"? I got to thinking about this and just had to ask how you could make such a ridiculous comment .... I don't hate Batman Forever as much as I do Batman & Robin. However, the reason the franchise never really died off like Superman is the original film was superb and to this day stands the test of time. The original Superman film hasn't faired as well as the original Batman film by Burton. Batman Forever suffered from the overdone set design, I think had they kept it dark like the original film it would be better, but I don't loathe it as much as I do the 4th film. Forever had Tommy Lee Jones playing Two-Face and his portrayal made him the 2nd best villian of the series. Of Course Joker being the 1st, and Scarecrow being third best. Superman III and Superman IV were far worse than Batman 3 & 4. Anyone can admit that. At least one can sit and watch all of Batman Forever... can anyone sit through Superman 3. I can amke it through most of Batman 4, I can't even make it through 15 minutes of Superman 4. Like I said, I will check out Superman Returns, and if it impresses me I will eat crow by replying about my thoughts on the film. Then why is it called "Dawn of the Dead"? That makes no sense. Actually it makes perfect sense. DAWN has two meanings: Early Morning The start of something. In this case the start of something would be the applicable definition. DAWN although a great title for the original film doesn't really fit. I think DAWN 1978 was called DAWN because of night, when technically it has a much deeper meaning. DAWN 1978 wasn't the start of the apocalypse, in the film it was pretty much ongoing for 3+ weeks. In the 2004 version it basically started that day the film opened, or the night before.