Movieguide.Org - “Superman Returns” Review is BS [Archive]

Beast

07-16-2006, 12:36 PM

From your post on neat*geek:
Sir,
I am shocked and appalled at the blatant assumptions you make in your review of Superman Returns.
I won’t make an itemized list, but I will touch on a few things.
The most striking accusation is that one of Lex Luthor’s henchmen is referenced as a child molester. I have watched the film several times, read the comic book adaptation, the adult and junior novelizations, and the script and in none of them was this ever mentioned. I have no idea where you got this from. Very sloppy, Mr. Baehr.
Actually, you clearly haven't watched the film rather well. I don't recall offhand exatcly when it occurs in the movie. But there is a refrence to a group of reported child molesters who have clown tattoos. So yes, that is right from the film. It may have been in the bar, or in the stories that is discussed at the story meeting. Regardless, it is in the film. That's why it was played up so much in the film when it's revealed. :p
When Lex Luthor talks about a god sharing his power he’s referring to Superman. Not God. He feels that Superman sees himself as a god, and a selfish one at that.
Do you know what equates means, the word that the reviewer himself used? The reviewer is saying that Lex was relating Superman a God to selfish to share his power. Hence the whole talk of Promethus giving fire to humanity against god's will. And if you read the reveiw without being biased, he states as such.
There is no bloodshed in the film. Not even when Superman is stabbed with the Kryptonite shank (although we do see the wound).
There's blood on the Kryptonite shank, and on the wound. And on the piece that is removed from Superman at the hospital. So there is blood. And the reviewer says there is violence with 'Little Blood', so there youy go.
There is no passionate kissing or hugging in the movie, unless you count the encounters between Lois and her son. Her son was not born out of wedlock either, as Superman and Lois were married in the Fortress of Solitude in Superman II.
They were? That wasn't a marriage. They spent the night together after Superman gave up his powers. His son was concieved and born out of wedlock. Even if you disagree that this is an amoral thing, it did happen.
I wouldn’t call what we saw in the film “heavy alcohol use.” In the scene at the bar Clark and Jimmy have maybe five sips between them. And Clark does not go to the bar out of desperation over the situation, he goes there at the bequest of Jimmy, who wants to catch up with an old friend. If you’re familiar with the comics at all you’d know that alcohol has no effect on Superman anyway, a beer is no more intoxicating than a glass of water.
This is the only comment that I can actually agree with. Because it wasn't heavy alcohol useage. But in the context of all your other baseless complaints, I won't give you any bonus points over it. :p
In short, I am outraged that anybody could lend such an inaccurate review credence. If The New York Times had published such a review the reviewer would have most likely been fired.
Think before you write, Mr. Baehr. Believe me, people who aren’t scared of films with child molesters or “revenge rebuked” (what does that have to do with anything?) will see the movies you so condemn and call you out as I have done tonight.
Sincerely yours,
neat*geek
In short, your rude and give comic fans a bad name by being a total ass to Dr. Ted Baehr over his review, even though for the most part he gets the facts straight. Yes, he does present them with an obvious Christian bias, but that is who the site caters to. And please don't bother to defend yourself, you have no ground to stand on.

Evan Waters

07-16-2006, 12:42 PM

From your post on neat*geek:

Actually, you clearly haven't watched the film rather well. I don't recall offhand exatcly when it occurs in the movie. But there is a refrence to a group of reported child molesters who have clown tattoos.

Perry says something about a "Birthday clown massacre" piece, but nothing about child molestation. (I didn't even think that was related to that one guy.)

Beast

07-16-2006, 01:05 PM

Perry says something about a "Birthday clown massacre" piece, but nothing about child molestation. (I didn't even think that was related to that one guy.)
I swear it was 'molester', not 'massacre'. Either way the guy was supposed to be one of those said clown people. Hence the creepy reveal of the tattoo and the threat when he gets close to Jason.

CaptainAwesome

07-16-2006, 01:17 PM

I swear it was 'molester', not 'massacre'. Either way the guy was supposed to be one of those said clown people. Hence the creepy reveal of the tattoo and the threat when he gets close to Jason.
It was massacre, but I dont think that the guy was gong to molest jason, he was just trying to psych-out Lois.

Beast

07-16-2006, 01:26 PM

It was massacre, but I dont think that the guy was gong to molest jason, he was just trying to psych-out Lois.
Again, like I said it may have been massacre. Either way, it was clear to me that he was one of said group, so either way Jason was in danger. In regard to the man being a child killer.

David Atkins

07-16-2006, 03:13 PM

Again, like I said it may have been massacre. Either way, it was clear to me that he was one of said group, so either way Jason was in danger. In regard to the man being a child killer.

If he was supposed to be a part of 'said group,' they would have made that more clear in the movie for the sake of impact when he revealed his tattoo. For instance, they might have actually MENTIONED the tattoos as a going thing for the group.

Besides, the tatt looked like a dog to me.

PatrickG

07-16-2006, 03:19 PM

I'm not sure that the link is so evident.

I think the clown tattoo was meant to be creepy/funny and not necessarily a reference to the massacre. And I took the thug playing piano as evidence of a "Gentle Giant" kind of thing for comedy (and some nifty pacing when Lois is trying to fax off her distress message).

As in, this guy is a brutal killer. This guy can play piano and be kind towards children... But he'll just as soon kill the women and child if they get in his way. I took it as ambiguity that's meant to be a little disturbing.

It's a dark gag on the order of having a man help a blind woman across the street after buying cat food for her cats. The guy throws fifty dollars in a Salvation Army charity bucket... then runs down an alley, stabs someone, steals their wallet, steals their car and runs over the blind woman on the way back through with a shrug and an apology, "Oh. Sorry. Well, at least the cats will be well fed."

It's the idea of a person showing kindness and virtue while being evil. Like an unrepetent murderer placing flowers on a victim's grave. Like blowing up someone's house and giving them change for a pay phone.

Beast

07-16-2006, 03:51 PM

If he was supposed to be a part of 'said group,' they would have made that more clear in the movie for the sake of impact when he revealed his tattoo. For instance, they might have actually MENTIONED the tattoos as a going thing for the group.

Besides, the tatt looked like a dog to me.
Why do you think there was an impact when he revealed the tattoo?

protonik

07-16-2006, 04:09 PM

Again, like I said it may have been massacre. Either way, it was clear to me that he was one of said group, so either way Jason was in danger. In regard to the man being a child killer.

There wasn't a reference to child killers either. Just that a group of clown tattood thugs commited a massacre.

Jason

van-zee

07-16-2006, 04:11 PM

Do you know what equates means, the word that the reviewer himself used? The reviewer is saying that Lex was relating Superman a God to selfish to share his power. Hence the whole talk of Promethus giving fire to humanity against god's will. And if you read the reveiw without being biased, he states as such.

This is the line that is on the site today:
villain says god is selfish and won’t share his power, referring to Superman.

This is the line as it was on Friday night:
villain say God is selfish and won't share his power.

He also added the line you referenced, as it wasn't there on Friday.

They were? That wasn't a marriage. They spent the night together after Superman gave up his powers. His son was concieved and born out of wedlock. Even if you disagree that this is an amoral thing, it did happen.

It was the Kryptonian equivalent. Not that I think that it was an immoral thing... although I find people who get married because of a pregnancy and not of of love immoral.

In short, your rude and give comic fans a bad name by being a total ass to Dr. Ted Baehr over his review, even though for the most part he gets the facts straight.

Dr. Ted Baehr is a sensationalist tool who takes payola from studios for favorable reviews and presents inaccurate information to the Christian movie-going public.

And please don't bother to defend yourself, you have no ground to stand on.

Oops. My bad.

David Atkins

07-16-2006, 04:13 PM

Why do you think there was an impact when he revealed the tattoo?

Because it was weird? Because he was deliberately screwing with Lois' head? Because the director thought it made a good shot?

Who knows?

What we do know is that there is no actual connection linking the two-- nothing in the movie or the novel shows any relation between the man with the tattoo and the 'Birthday Clown Massacre' mentioned by Perry (once and in the passing). There isn't even anything to tell was what the Birthday Clown Massacre was, in the first place; was it a Birthday Clown who massacred a group of people, or was it a group of Birthday Clowns whom were massacred?

It is not an uninteresting theory, though; I like it and think that, with the proper handling, such a connection could be-- or could have been-- beneficial to the storyline.

van-zee

07-16-2006, 04:15 PM

Perry says something about a "Birthday clown massacre" piece, but nothing about child molestation. (I didn't even think that was related to that one guy.)

And this fact is really what got me going on this particular review (although Baehr has been a hot topic for me for years). Well, that and his constant references to the scene on an island as the "Passion" scene. Jesus's death wasn't his passion, that was his sacrifice. His passion was in his life: loafs and fish to the masses, the beatitudes, throwing the vendors out of the temple. Freaking Mel Gibson.

Smarty Jones

07-16-2006, 04:35 PM

"It was the Kryptonian equivalent. Not that I think that it was an immoral thing... although I find people who get married because of a pregnancy and not of of love immoral."

So what do you think of a superhero who has a clandestine child with a woman, and that woman has her fiance thinking the child is his?

Or the superhero -- who, like everyone else, thought the woman had the child with her fiance -- still pursued said woman, up to an including going to their house and eavesdropping on them?

Mary Nelson

07-16-2006, 04:40 PM

i thought it was "molestor" not "massacre" too...

David Atkins

07-16-2006, 04:53 PM

Or the superhero -- who, like everyone else, thought the woman had the child with her fiance -- still pursued said woman, up to an including going to their house and eavesdropping on them?

Superman did not pursue 'said woman.' What you see as 'pursuit' is nothing more than an attempt at finding closure-- something Lois clearly needed as much as he did-- and at reconciling within his own mind his memories of what was with what is.

van-zee

07-16-2006, 05:20 PM

So what do you think of a superhero who has a clandestine child with a woman, and that woman has her fiance thinking the child is his?

It was never said in the movie that Richard even thinks the child was his, nor did it mention if Lois even knew it was Superman's (up until the point where he chucked a piano across the room, of course).

It's perfectly reasonable that Richard knew, but agreed to be the child's father anyway. That's how I was raised. My father passed away before I was born, and my mom remarried about six months later. My stepfather was the only dad I knew, and the only one I knew about until I was eight years old. When I found out he wasn't my real dad, it didn't matter. He was the one who had been there for me. He was my dad. Not genetically, but in every other sense.

Smarty Jones

07-16-2006, 07:02 PM

"Superman did not pursue 'said woman.' What you see as 'pursuit' is nothing more than an attempt at finding closure-- something Lois clearly needed as much as he did-- and at reconciling within his own mind his memories of what was with what is."

That's funny, I didn't see "closure" -- I saw some deep-rooted "obsession."

Lois Lane is introduced as having a child and a fiance -- with a logical assumption that Richard (the fiance) is the father of Jason (the child).

However, that didn't stop Superman from eavesdropping on them at their house, prying into their lives. Or from Clark changing into Superman and meeting her on the roof, to fly her off around the world -- knowing the consequences of such encounter would raise some emotions, which nearly concluded with a kiss and a flustered Lois lying to Richard where he was (all the while Clark changed back into civilian clothes and knowing *WHY* she was flustered).

Closure isn't running off in the arms of an unrequited love -- one you callously didn't say good-bye to when you know you're going to be gone for five years. The fact that Lois pursued a relationship with Richard (and apparently lied about the paternity of her son) is in no small part because Superman left without saying good-bye and she has no idea who he really is.

Also, you don't "find closure" in some quasi-romantic trip with someone who is engaged to be married to (at that time, presumably) the father of said woman's child.

Smarty Jones

07-16-2006, 07:10 PM

"It was never said in the movie that Richard even thinks the child was his, nor did it mention if Lois even knew it was Superman's (up until the point where he chucked a piano across the room, of course)."

In light of what you wrote in regards to your misguided letter that started this thread, I don't think you have much a leg upon which to stand.

Your comment is based on hindsight, not by deduction of anything shown or depicted prior to Lex Luthor's discovery. And judging by Lois Lane's reaction when Luthor asked did she know who the father was, it was evident that Lois was lying -- she knew Jason was Superman's son way before he waved that Kryptonite bar in their direction.

But what we do know is that Lois and Superman know who the child's father is -- and that prior to that knowledge, Superman still was entering and prying into Lois' life when he thought Jason was Richard's child and she was engaged to Richard.

"It's perfectly reasonable that Richard knew, but agreed to be the child's father anyway."

And until it's actually stated in the next movie, all you're doing is passing along conjecture. Going by what we saw in the movie, there is no reason or anything pointing toward such logic.

van-zee

07-16-2006, 07:55 PM

And until it's actually stated in the next movie, all you're doing is passing along conjecture. Going by what we saw in the movie, there is no reason or anything pointing toward such logic.

Lois didn't know it was Superman's kid. Both she and Richard thought it was Richard's. For proof, from Superman Returns Prequel #4: Lois Lane:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/905642/lois.jpg

Smarty Jones

07-16-2006, 08:05 PM

Another grouping of source material that may or may not have correlation to material in another medium. It actually proves nothing, and it has no bearing on what is in the movie.

In fact, it has no bearing on the conversation in regarding "Superman Returns," which centered around the fact that Lois knows that Jason is Superman's son and she didn't tell Richard.

Gilda Dent

07-16-2006, 08:23 PM

Hmmm. It seems a pretty fair review to me, especially compared to the approach some other "Christian" movie critics and sites take. I don't see anything invented. Perhaps an alternate interpretation of the evidence, but that's a wholly different thing.

If anything, I think he gives the movie more praise than it deserves, but that's a difference in taste rather than anything factual.

The comic book page isn't in the movie, therefore it isn't relevant to a discussion of the movie.

Gilda

David Atkins

07-16-2006, 08:26 PM

The comic book page isn't in the movie, therefore it isn't relevant to a discussion of the movie.

*LOL* So arguing about the 'supehero movie' is valid, but referencing the superhero's comic book which was created in order to tie into said movie is not.

That's lucid.

Gilda Dent

07-16-2006, 08:41 PM

*LOL* So arguing about the 'supehero movie' is valid, but referencing the superhero's comic book which was created in order to tie into said movie is not.

That's lucid.

Thank you; I agree. The movie is what happens on screen, and those elements implied by what happens on screen. Tie ins, while often entertaining, are not part of the movie itself.

Gilda

Damo

07-16-2006, 08:48 PM

*LOL* So arguing about the 'supehero movie' is valid, but referencing the superhero's comic book which was created in order to tie into said movie is not.

That's lucid.

*Thinks about that for a moment.* Pretty much, yeah.

David Atkins

07-16-2006, 08:50 PM

J. Robb

07-16-2006, 08:55 PM

Seeing as how the comic was deliberately created and released to accompany the movie, unless it directly contradicts something we KNOW happened in the movie, then we can assume that any information contained therein can be relevant in expanding and clarifying our understanding of the movie itself.
I don't know... The same can be said about the novelization, and it supposedly has some pretty big differences.

Movies can be cut and edited right up until release, scenes may be added or dropped which can have a huge effect on the story. Which is why when discussing a movie (any movie) I tend to stick to it and not any tie-ins or adaptions.

Sean Whitmore

07-16-2006, 09:02 PM

In fact, it has no bearing on the conversation in regarding "Superman Returns," which centered around the fact that Lois knows that Jason is Superman's son and she didn't tell Richard.

Missed that scene.

SEAN

Gilda Dent

07-16-2006, 09:03 PM

David Atkins

07-16-2006, 09:12 PM

I don't know... The same can be said about the novelization, and it supposedly has some pretty big differences.

The novelization was VERY different, especially where Jason is concerned, and I would not consider it to walk hand-in-hand with the movie.

And Gilda, it is NOT about needing to read more to understand the movie, it is about being ABLE to read more to understand the movie BETTER... or not, if doing so doesn't suit you. But simply dismissing out of hand any and all information contained in the tie-ins as irrelevant for it's lack of screen-time hardly seems reasonable.

Sean Whitmore

07-16-2006, 09:16 PM

And Gilda, it is NOT about needing to read more to understand the movie, it is about being ABLE to read more to understand the movie BETTER... or not, if doing so doesn't suit you. But simply dismissing out of hand any and all information contained in the tie-ins as irrelevant for it's lack of screen-time hardly seems reasonable.

Eh, I would consider information gleamed from the prequels to amount to the same as information gotten from a director's commentary or an interview.

It's interesting, yes. And it may have been what the filmmaker was thinking while he did it. And it may have been something he wanted to explain but for whatever reason didn't.

But if it's not actually IN the movie, I don't think of it as part of the movie.

SEAN

Gilda Dent

07-16-2006, 09:16 PM

The novelization was VERY different, especially where Jason is concerned, and I would not consider it to walk hand-in-hand with the movie.

And Gilda, it is NOT about needing to read more to understand the movie, it is about being ABLE to read more to understand the movie BETTER... or not, if doing so doesn't suit you. But simply dismissing out of hand any and all information contained in the tie-ins as irrelevant for it's lack of screen-time hardly seems reasonable.

Seems reasonable to me. My basic philosophy when it comes to media is that source material is irrelevant to the product. What happens in the comics is comic book Superman, and what happens in the movies is movie Superman, and those are separate entities which should be judged separately on their own merits.

Edit: Dang it Sean. You went and said what I wanted to say, but better, and got it posted first. [much fist shaking]

Gilda

van-zee

07-16-2006, 09:18 PM

I don't know... The same can be said about the novelization, and it supposedly has some pretty big differences.

Movies can be cut and edited right up until release, scenes may be added or dropped which can have a huge effect on the story. Which is why when discussing a movie (any movie) I tend to stick to it and not any tie-ins or adaptions.

There's one major difference between the novel and the comics: the novel was adapted from the screenplay. The prequels were written based on plots by the screenwriters and Singer. They are totally admissible as evidence to fill in plot gaps that might otherwise lead one to assumption.

Smarty Jones

07-16-2006, 09:24 PM

"Missed that scene."

So did Richard.

Sean Whitmore

07-16-2006, 09:27 PM

So did Richard.

Ba-DUM-bum. :)

SEAN

van-zee

07-16-2006, 09:28 PM

From Newsarama (http://www.newsarama.com/dcnew/supermanreturns/COHENSUPERMAN.html):

NRAMA: Chicken or the egg question - how did this fairly project come about? Were these stories always a part of the backstory Bryan Singer, Dan Harris, and Michael Dougherty created while writing, or preparing to write the screenplay?

Or did the ideas for these stories come later?

And was this something they approached DC/Warner about doing, or did DC come to them with the idea?

IC: This is something the Singer crew absolutely had in mind very early on. The stories that they wanted to tell with us were always part of the backdrop of the new movie and the events as they play out in the comics clearly expand on themes from Superman Returns.

David Atkins

07-16-2006, 09:33 PM

My basic philosophy when it comes to media is that source material is irrelevant to the product. What happens in the comics is comic book Superman, and what happens in the movies is movie Superman, and those are separate entities which should be judged separately on their own merits.

Gilda

Absolutely. But the source material, in this case, was not the comic books. These particular comic books were written to accompany and compliment the movie and, like I said before, can only be considered irrelevant to the movie if they outright contradict something that we already know from the movie.

Gilda Dent

07-16-2006, 09:39 PM

Absolutely. But the source material, in this case, was not the comic books. These particular comic books were written to accompany and compliment the movie and, like I said before, can only be considered irrelevant to the movie if they outright contradict something that we already know from the movie.

The comics and the movie shared source material, but the basic idea there is the same.

Accompany and compliment I have no problem with. They are not, however, part of the movie itself. They can be considered irrelevant, as I and a couple of others in this thread have demonstrated.

Gilda

Sam T.

07-16-2006, 09:39 PM

Hahaha...this just proves to me why this movie sucked!!

van-zee

07-16-2006, 09:42 PM

The comics and the movie shared source material, but the basic idea there is the same.

Accompany and compliment I have no problem with. They are not, however, part of the movie itself. They can be considered irrelevant, as I and a couple of others in this thread have demonstrated.

Gilda

But you haven't demonstrated that. In fact, the only thing that has been demonstrated is the the creator of the movie intended for these comics to be considered cannon history for the movie. Just because that proof goes against your point doesn't mean it's invalid. That is the most illogical argument I've ever heard. Sounds like something a 4-year-old would say.

J. Robb

07-16-2006, 09:45 PM

One thing from the prequel comics I think they really should have mentioned in the movie was Ma Kent sending out postcards on Clark's behalf while he was gone.

van-zee

07-16-2006, 09:46 PM

One thing from the prequel comics I think they really should have mentioned in the movie was Ma Kent sending out postcards on Clark's behalf while he was gone.

I agree. So many people have complained about nobody thinking it strange that Clark and Superman were gone the same amount of time.

I believe I recall something like this happening in the comics very soon after the Byrne revamp. Am I crazy?

Gilda Dent

07-16-2006, 09:49 PM

But you haven't demonstrated that. In fact, the only thing that has been demonstrated is the the creator of the movie intended for these comics to be considered cannon history for the movie. Just because that proof goes against your point doesn't mean it's invalid. That is the most illogical argument I've ever heard. Sounds like something a 4-year-old would say.

The point that I was disputing was "[these comics] can only be considered irrelevant to the movie if they outright contradict something that we already know from the movie".

Whether they are relevant or not is an opinion--you hold that they are, I don't think they should. They can be considered irrelevant, because they are considered irrelevant by me and others in this thread. That's not really disputable. What is is whether they should be considered relevant. I don't think so, for the reasons stated.

Gilda

Smarty Jones

07-16-2006, 09:51 PM

"There's one major difference between the novel and the comics: the novel was adapted from the screenplay. The prequels were written based on plots by the screenwriters and Singer. They are totally admissible as evidence to fill in plot gaps that might otherwise lead one to assumption."

It's material in another medium. Just because you're discussing a book based on "Superman Returns" does not mean it has to work concurrently with or as a complement to the movie. The book can present material contradictory to or totally different from the movie, if the creators choose.

You can't even argue that the mediums are using the same creators -- meaning another creator altogether can create his or own different version. it's no different than the TV series "Blade" being based on the movie "Blade," both of which are mostly alien to the original depiction of the comic book character.

van-zee

07-16-2006, 09:54 PM

You can't even argue that the mediums are using the same creators -- meaning another creator altogether can create his or own different version. it's no different than the TV series "Blade" being based on the movie "Blade," both of which are mostly alien to the original depiction of the comic book character.[/color][/font]

Actually, in both cases the same creator is there. David Goyer, who wrote the first two Blade movies and wrote/directed the third one, is also the head writer on the TV series.

And the comics were made by the creators of the movie to help flesh out the world in ways which there just weren't time for in the movie.

van-zee

07-16-2006, 09:55 PM

The point that I was disputing was "[these comics] can only be considered irrelevant to the movie if they outright contradict something that we already know from the movie".

Whether they are relevant or not is an opinion--you hold that they are, I don't think they should. They can be considered irrelevant, because they are considered irrelevant by me and others in this thread. That's not really disputable. What is is whether they should be considered relevant. I don't think so, for the reasons stated.

Gilda

The flipping creators of the movie say they are relevant! Who cares what you think compared to that?

Smarty Jones

07-16-2006, 10:06 PM

"Actually, in both cases the same creator is there. David Goyer, who wrote the first two Blade movies and wrote/directed the third one, is also the head writer on the TV series."

OK, but the Blade that's in the comic books in no way resembled the Blade played in the Wesley Snipes movies and the TV series. If anything, it serves my point how the same idea can be given life differently in different mediums.

"And the comics were made by the creators of the movie to help flesh out the world in ways which there just weren't time for in the movie".

Maybe we're talking about different things, but aside from the detail that their mothers were bitten by vampires while giving birth to them, there was little semblance between the movie and comic book version of Blade until very recent years.

Originally, Blade lacked superhuman physical prowess; he trained himself to become an Olympic-level athlete and a formidable hand-to-hand combatant. Most notably, he became an expert with edged weapons and especially knives and daggers.

However, due to the success of the films, efforts were made by Marvel to make the comic version resemble the film character more closely. This was achieved by having Blade be bit on the arm by Morbius. The injury resulted in Blade becoming a half-vampire, which gave him all of a vampire's strengths but none of their weaknesses. He had super strength, great agility, and immunity to sunlight.

Gilda Dent

07-16-2006, 10:09 PM

"Who cares what you think" doesn't really dispute my reasoning nor any of the points I've made, and generally isn't a strong argument for, well, anything.

Gilda

David Atkins

07-16-2006, 10:11 PM

OK, but the Blade that's in the comic books in no way resembled the Blade played in the Wesley Snipes movies and the TV series. If anything, it serves my point how the same idea can be given life differently in different mediums.

Maybe we're talking about different things, but aside from the detail that their mothers were bitten by vampires while giving birth to them, there was little semblance between the movie and comic book version of Blade until very recent years.

Both true and valid points, but we're not talking about a comic book series being retconned so that it matches the movie, we're talking about a series of comic books that were created to be a part of the movie's continuity and have been recognized as such by the creators of said movie.

Do the comic book series 'Superman' or 'Action Comics' have any bearing on Superman Returns? Absolutely not. Do the SR comics that were created specifically to be prequels to the movie? Absolutely.

"Who cares what you think" doesn't really dispute my reasoning nor any of the points I've made, and generally isn't a strong argument for, well, anything.

Gilda

It does when you consider the rest of the text that followed that comment.

van-zee

07-16-2006, 10:12 PM

Maybe we're talking about different things, but aside from the detail that their mothers were bitten by vampires while giving birth to them, there was little semblance between the movie and comic book version of Blade until very recent years.

Originally, Blade lacked superhuman physical prowess; he trained himself to become an Olympic-level athlete and a formidable hand-to-hand combatant. Most notably, he became an expert with edged weapons and especially knives and daggers.

However, due to the success of the films, efforts were made by Marvel to make the comic version resemble the film character more closely. This was achieved by having Blade be bit on the arm by Morbius. The injury resulted in Blade becoming a half-vampire, which gave him all of a vampire's strengths but none of their weaknesses. He had super strength, great agility, and immunity to sunlight.

Okay, yes, we are talking about different things. In the Superman comic books there is no kid, no Richard White relationship, none of that. The comics I have been referencing were made specifically for the movie, and set in the universe of the movie. There were four issues (the first an adaptation of the first twenty mins. of Superman I, the other three told the story of Ma Kent, Lex Luthor, and Lois Lane whilst Superman was gone in space) and their stories were written by Singer and the screenwriters. I'm not talking about the actual DCU Superman comics.

ETA: Aw, Fireface beat me to it.

van-zee

07-16-2006, 10:15 PM

"Who cares what you think" doesn't really dispute my reasoning nor any of the points I've made, and generally isn't a strong argument for, well, anything.

Gilda

Thank you for proving my point, as that's exactly the defense you're using, albeit a little less directely.

Gilda Dent

07-16-2006, 10:24 PM

Thank you for proving my point, as that's exactly the defense you're using, albeit a little less directely.

No. I've said nothing of the sort, and I would appreciate it if you would not attribute to me words or ideas I do not hold and have not expressed.

I've given my opinion as to the relevance of the comics you cited, and the reasons why I hold that opinion. If you want to dispute my opinion and vigorously defend yours, that's wonderful, that's why we have such discussions, but to say "who cares what you think" is unlikely to contribute much if anything to the discussion.

Gilda

Smarty Jones

07-16-2006, 10:31 PM

"Both true and valid points, but we're not talking about a comic book series being retconned so that it matches the movie, we're talking about a series of comic books that were created to be a part of the movie's continuity and have been recognized as such by the creators of said movie."

I would say the comic books are BASED ON the film "Superman Returns" and leave it at that. Not only do they have different mediums, but different creators working on the books.

I don't see this any different as say, the "Batman: The Animated Series" or "X-Men: Evolution" comic books that came out inspired by the television shows. Or better yet, the "Star Wars" comics that were out years after the first trio of movies. They are based on the medium, but had a self-sustained life on their own away from the media that spawned them.

At best, they are supplemental side stories to the movie in another medium altogether -- not required and essential to enjoy the movie.

van-zee

07-16-2006, 10:33 PM

No. I've said nothing of the sort, and I would appreciate it if you would not attribute to me words or ideas I do not hold and have not expressed.

I've given my opinion as to the relevance of the comics you cited, and the reasons why I hold that opinion. If you want to dispute my opinion and vigorously defend yours, that's wonderful, that's why we have such discussions, but to say "who cares what you think" is unlikely to contribute much if anything to the discussion.

Gilda

That's exactly what you are saying to the creators of this film and their intentions behind these comic books. You are saying "I don't want Lois to think it's Richard's kid, Singer, so who cares what your crummy prequel comic books say."

I just went back through all your post, and your defense is simply that they don't matter because you don't think they should (although you do stroll down the same path as Smarty Jones at one point saying that we're talking about "comic book Superman." We're not. We're talking about "movie Superman" in a comic book). That would not hold up in a high-school debate class, and it doesn't hold up here.

van-zee

07-16-2006, 10:35 PM

[color=darkred][font=arial]I would say the comic books are BASED ON the film "Superman Returns" and leave it at that. Not only do they have different mediums, but different creators working on the books.

They have an artist because it is a different medium, but all the concepts presented in the comics are directly from Brian Singer and his screenwriters. Different mediums, same creators.

J. Robb

07-16-2006, 10:36 PM

van-zee

07-16-2006, 10:55 PM

I don't think the creators would endorse the prequels too readily, other than to comic buying audiences. It would be bad marketting to suggest that viewers need to seek out the comics to get the "full experience" of the movie. They're just optional extras.

They haven't been marketed as required reading to understand the movies, just as the Southland Tales prequels aren't required reading. It's just the back story. You don't need to read the bible to understand "The Passion of the Christ," but it sure helps you understand that it's more than just a supernatural snuff film (actually, that's debatable, but you see my point.)

Gilda Dent

07-16-2006, 11:04 PM

That's exactly what you are saying to the creators of this film and their intentions behind these comic books. You are saying "I don't want Lois to think it's Richard's kid, Singer, so who cares what your crummy prequel comic books say."

No, that is not what I'm saying. Please stop putting words in my mouth and telling me what my argument is. The former is both rude and in this case wildly inacurrate, and you're doing a remarkably poor job of the latter.

I just went back through all your post, and your defense is simply that they don't matter because you don't think they should (although you do stroll down the same path as Smarty Jones at one point saying that we're talking about "comic book Superman." We're not. We're talking about "movie Superman" in a comic book). That would not hold up in a high-school debate class, and it doesn't hold up here.

No, that is not my point.

We are talking about a comic book Superman, one based on the movie, or movie script from Superman Returns. That does not mean that what appears in the comics is part of what happens in the movie.

Gilda

van-zee

07-16-2006, 11:10 PM

The comic books are the official back story for the movie.

Smarty Jones

07-16-2006, 11:19 PM

"I just went back through all your post, and your defense is simply that they don't matter because you don't think they should (although you do stroll down the same path as Smarty Jones at one point saying that we're talking about "comic book Superman." We're not. We're talking about "movie Superman" in a comic book)."

I did not confuse the Superman mainstream DC Universe with the "Superman Returns" books.

After making a comment about the Blade TV series and the Blade movies, you made this comment -- "And the comics were made by the creators of the movie to help flesh out the world in ways which there just weren't time for in the movie" -- that wasn't attributed to anything.

At the risk of being mistaken, I thought you may have been talking about the Blade franchise (the comic books and the movies) -- about which I made my comments.

Smarty Jones

07-16-2006, 11:26 PM

"They have an artist because it is a different medium, but all the concepts presented in the comics are directly from Brian Singer and his screenwriters. Different mediums, same creators."

They have different editors and go through different creative channels -- the only commonlaity is the writer's loose concept, a concept that is out of the hands of Bryan Singer and thus can take a life of its own.

Outside of the concept coming from Singer's mind, there's no validity or relevance here. It's not required knowledge to watch "Superman Returns" and it's subjective on whether it's supplemental material. It's an optional source for those who may want to read stories based on the Superman in that interpretation, and enjoyed in that isolated capacity.

It is no more valid than reading the Superman comic based on the animated series and saying it's "official source material" for the cartoon.

van-zee

07-16-2006, 11:37 PM

They have different editors and go through different creative channels -- the only commonlaity is the writer's loose concept, a concept that is out of the hands of Bryan Singer and thus can take a life of its own.

Outside of the concept coming from Singer's mind, there's no validity or relevance here. It's not required knowledge to watch "Superman Returns" and it's subjective on whether it's supplemental material. It's an optional source for those who may want to read stories based on the Superman in that interpretation, and enjoyed in that isolated capacity.

It is no more valid than reading the Superman comic based on the animated series and saying it's "official source material" for the cartoon.

Every bit of evidence I can find to support this from that same Newsarama (http://www.newsarama.com/dcnew/supermanreturns/COHENSUPERMAN.html) article, since you guys won't listen to reason:

Ivan Cohen: Each issue ends close to the start of the new movie, except for the first one, which retells the Kryptonian origin story.
--------------------
Doing something in comics form tied to the movie was important to Singer, Harris, and Dougherty, and their discussions with Dan Didio led to the development of the Superman Returns Prequel miniseries - titled that way to make it very clear that this a separate animal from the adaptation and the new feature. It's something which I don't think has ever been tried in terms of movie tie-in comics: wholly original books, connected to the movie property and the comics, with substantial involvement from the film's director and screenwriters, as well as from some of comics' most talented writers and artists.
-------------------
{evidence to the creators of the movie being involved in every step of the process}Michael Dougherty, the screenwriter who's been my main contact on the books as the art and script have come in, was visiting the office, and he, Mark Chiarello and I had a conference call with Adam, talking about what we were looking for from the covers.
-------------------
First, let me make clear that this is a miniseries, not four one-shot specials. Though the issues have different writers and comics scripters attached to them, the themes of the books are very strongly connected, and there's a distinct story weaving through all four issues.
-------------------
instead we focused on expanding other parts of the story from the movie - things that are valuable, but don't get as much play in the finished cut of Superman Returns as things involving crashing airplanes and schemes that will kill billions!
-------------------
they're focused on the relationship between Clark's Kryptonian parents and their infant child. How they save him from Krypton's destruction, and what they do to prepare him for life on Earth, is a critical part of the new movie. All the writers - Singer, Dougherty and Harris on the story side, Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray on the comics scripting - and artist Ariel Olivetti do an amazing job of recreating the Krypton of the 1978 film.
-------------------
we definitely see a transition from the Lex of the '78 movie to the much scarier, Swimming with Sharks-type Luthor of Returns. What Lex does to make it through five years of prison reveals his mean streak, and readers will get to see the leisure suit and toupee meet their end in these pages.
-------------------
Michael Dougherty wouldn't let me put "Otisburg" on the map in a flashback scene, so my apologies to the Ned Beatty fans out there.
-------------------
Andreyko worked with the movie guys to come up with a great look inside Lois' mind
-------------------
The involvement of Singer, Dougherty and Harris has really helped make a series that brings the 1978 film's story into the present day, and I think reading them will make seeing Superman Returns an even more satisfying experience.

Smarty Jones

07-16-2006, 11:59 PM

"Every bit of evidence I can find to support this from that same Newsarama (http://www.newsarama.com/dcnew/supermanreturns/COHENSUPERMAN.html) article, since you guys won't listen to reason:"

It's not an issue of "not listening to reason," because what is going on in the "Superman Returns" comic book is made irrelevant by the fact it wasn't important to put in the movie (on which the comic book is based).

Even your Newsrama article states what Bryan Singer and Co. "make it very clear that this a separate animal from the adaptation and the new feature."

David Atkins

07-17-2006, 12:10 AM

Different mediums, same creators.

Still relevant. Right on.

It's not an issue of "not listening to reason," because what is going on in the "Superman Returns" comic book is made irrelevant by the fact it wasn't important to put in the movie (on which the comic book is based).

The comic books are the official backstory, made relevant by the creative team whom spawned both them and the movies. Arguing against that, at this point, is like arguing that the Earth is flat; every shred of relevant evidence is against you.

van-zee

07-17-2006, 12:14 AM

Even your Newsrama article states what Bryan Singer and Co. "make it very clear that this a separate animal from the adaptation and the new feature."[/color][/font]

Meaning that it doesn't tell the exact same story as those books. It fills in the back story so it's there for the curious but doesn't detract from the story they are trying to tell.

Smarty Jones

07-17-2006, 12:17 AM

"The comic books are the official backstory, made relevant by the creative team whom spawned both them and the movies."

And made irrelevant by the fact that it's at best supplemental information in another medium -- and not required to enjoy "Superman Returns" or for people to read them before seeing "Superman Returns."

If you can state the books required reading material to accompany the movie, then you would have a point. But other than that, it's another one of your tired arguments.

"Meaning that it doesn't tell the exact same story as those books. It fills in the back story so it's there for the curious but doesn't detract from the story they are trying to tell."

It's also self-contained information that does not require the movie-goers to follow it nor does it require the readers to see "Superman Returns."

It may be inspired by "Superman Returns," but it is not relevant to the enjoyment of "Superman Returns." It doesn't even have to be consistent with "Superman Returns."

van-zee

07-17-2006, 12:25 AM

It may be inspired by "Superman Returns," but it is not relevant to the enjoyment of "Superman Returns." It doesn't even have to be consistent with "Superman Returns."[/color][/font]

Yes it does, because it is the back story as the creator's envisioned it. They were involved in every stage of the process, down to not letting the individual comic creators do things that they felt would contradict the back story as they envisioned it.

Your saying that because it's in another medium means it doesn't count is completely ludicrous and the fact that you won't admit that is both sad and disheartining.

Smarty Jones

07-17-2006, 12:39 AM

"Yes it does, because it is the back story as the creator's envisioned it. They were involved in every stage of the process, down to not letting the individual comic creators do things that they felt would contradict the back story as they envisioned it."

The statement was, "It may be inspired by 'Superman Returns,' but it is not relevant to the enjoyment of 'Superman Returns.' It doesn't even have to be consistent with 'Superman Returns.'"

That statement does stand true -- anyone who watched "Superman Returns" didn't have a lesser experience because they didn't read the comic book. Again, IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THE ENJOYMENT OF THE MOVIE -- if DC felt that way, someone in the movie line would have given every movie-goer a book reader as they entered or left.

It's a supplemental book, another form of adaptation of the movie.

"Your saying that because it's in another medium means it doesn't count is completely ludicrous and the fact that you won't admit that is both sad and disheartining."

Says the same person who actually thinks a child walking around with a trash can on his head is a clue he is Superman's son.

Like that comparison, this comment doesn't make sense. The book is made irrelevant by the fact that is in another medium that has some extraneous material that is not germane to the story. Just like "Star Wars" comic books are not essential to watching the movies.

David Atkins

07-17-2006, 12:44 AM

The statement was, "It may be inspired by 'Superman Returns,' but it is not relevant to the enjoyment of 'Superman Returns.' It doesn't even have to be consistent with 'Superman Returns.'"

That statement does stand true -- anyone who watched "Superman Returns" didn't have a lesser experience because they didn't read the comic book. Again, IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THE ENJOYMENT OF THE MOVIE -- if DC felt that way, someone in the movie line would have given every movie-goer a book reader as they entered or left.

It's a supplemental book, another form of adaptation of the movie.

I think you'll find that nobody aside from yourself is arguing whether or not the comic books are relevant to a person's enjoyment of Superman Returns as a movie. What we ARE arguing is that the prequel issues are ABSOLUTELY relevant as existing information that can be drawn upon in disputes over things that happened prior to the opening scene of Superman Returns.

Says the same person who actually thinks a child walking around with a trash can on his head is a clue he is Superman's son.

Tacky.

Like that comparison, this comment doesn't make sense. The book is made irrelevant by the fact that is in another medium that has some extraneous material that is not germane to the story. Just like "Star Wars" comic books are not essential to watching the movies.

The Star Wars comic books are different in that they were neither released with the movies, nor were they, to my knowledge, actually declared as in-continuity with the movies by George Lucas.

van-zee

07-17-2006, 12:54 AM

A bunch of stuff I agree with.

Tacky.

Well, it's a little artsy-fartsy, but I don't think my point about the trashcan thing was tacky... or were you talking about him bringing up something from another thread?

PatrickG

07-17-2006, 12:55 AM

It's like the difference between past Buffy comics (which were an apocryphal companion to the show) and the new "Season Seven" that series creator Joss Whedon and the series creators are writing.

Heck, had the TV movies happened, Whedon's plan was to have TV movies that spun out of and referenced events in the comics.

Oh. And if you ever watched Buffy, the big red axe from the finale was first mentioned in Joss Whedon's FRAY comic book and, seeing that Whedon considered FRAY canon, the axe was an important part of a pivotal moment in the Buffyverse history that really made sense to be brought in.

Smarty Jones

07-17-2006, 01:06 AM

"I think you'll find that nobody aside from yourself is arguing whether or not the comic books are relevant to a person's enjoyment of Superman Returns as a movie. What we ARE arguing is that the prequel issues are ABSOLUTELY relevant as existing information that can be drawn upon in disputes over things that happened prior to the opening scene of Superman Returns."

It's one and the same: the comic books aren't relevant to watching "Superman Returns" and are not going to be seen by the vast majority of the movie-goers -- hence the "relevance" as existing information. It's only relevant to those handful of comic book readers who want the enjoyment of reading a self-contained universe based on "Superman Returns."

If the informaiton was relevant, it either would have been in the movie or made known to all movie-goers as another viable source material.

"The Star Wars comic books are different in that they were neither released with the movies, nor were they, to my knowledge, actually declared as in-continuity with the movies by George Lucas."

The first "Star Wars" comic books were based on the movie, and then subsequent books branched off that initial movie. Like in the case, those subsequent books were not relevant toward the following movies.

van-zee

07-17-2006, 01:12 AM

If the information was relevant, it either would have been in the movie or made known to all movie-goers as another viable source material.

The prequels are available at most book stores, K-Mart, Target, and Wal-Mart.

To understand my song "I'm Better Now," it's not relevant to know that I moved to Philadelphia to be with my fiance, had my heart broken, and moved to LA because of it. It does however help one to completely understand all the various elements of the song.

Smarty Jones

07-17-2006, 01:22 AM

"The prequels are available at most book stores, K-Mart, Target, and Wal-Mart."

And that ensures that people are going to buy it? Compare how many people went to see "Superman Returns" vs. how many read these books -- how comparable are the numbers?

Like I said, if the books were relevant, they would have been passed out at the movie theater to people going to see "Superman Returns." You're talking about a book that is marketed to a mostly niche market and will have a smaller pool of readers.

"To understand my song "I'm Better Now," it's not relevant to know that I moved to Philadelphia to be with my fiance, had my heart broken, and moved to LA because of it. It does however help one to completely understand all the various elements of the song."

That analogy falls apart here, because neither condition (reading the book, moving) is relevant or crucial to the audience's enjoyment of the medium (movie, song). The medium is a separate entity unto itself.

van-zee

07-17-2006, 01:30 AM

That analogy falls apart here, because neither condition (reading the book, moving) is relevant or crucial to the audience's enjoyment of the medium (movie, song). The medium is a separate entity unto itself.

Dude, I'm not arguing that it's mandatory, I'm arguing that it's helpful. And do you really think it would be cost effective to hand out the prequels with every ticket sold? Ridiculous.

I suggest you change your nickname and your avatar. "Smarty" is not a word I'd ever use to describe you, and Mr. Terrific is the last hero I'd think of.

David Atkins

07-17-2006, 01:34 AM

It's one and the same: the comic books aren't relevant to watching "Superman Returns" and are not going to be seen by the vast majority of the movie-goers -- hence the "relevance" as existing information. It's only relevant to those handful of comic book readers who want the enjoyment of reading a self-contained universe based on "Superman Returns."

If the informaiton was relevant, it either would have been in the movie or made known to all movie-goers as another viable source material.

*Patiently* It occurs within the 'Superman Returns' universe, not a universe based on 'Superman Returns.' It tells a story that ties into the beginning of 'Superman Returns' and has been declared as being in-continuity by the people whom created both the comics and the movie itself.

That they are 'self-contained' is not a reference to the 'Superman Returns' universe, but to the fact that they are, as you said, not relevant to the average fan's enjoyment of the movie. However, that does not in any way render the information contained within them irrelevant.

Smarty Jones

07-17-2006, 01:37 AM

"Dude, I'm not arguing that it's mandatory, I'm arguing that it's helpful. And do you really think it would be cost effective to hand out the prequels with every ticket sold? Ridiculous."

I would argue the book is not even helpful -- it's an ancillary aside meant to piggyback off the movie.

And why hand out the books, since it's so "essential and part of the canon" of the movie, if not sell them at a discount for children? But I guess that would imply that "Superman Returns" was a movie geared toward children, and not a nostaligia-laden movie trying to hook on to movies made in the Carter and Reagan administrations.

"I suggest you change your nickname and your avatar. "Smarty" is not a word I'd ever use to describe you, and Mr. Terrific is the last hero I'd think of."

Considering your avatar, I suggest you go back into your one-bedroom apartment with Ernie.

van-zee

07-17-2006, 01:40 AM

Considering your avatar, I suggest you go back into your one-bedroom apartment with Ernie.

Dude, now you're calling me gay? I'm not going to dignify that with a confession or a denial. Although it isn't surprising your a homophobe by any stretch.

David Atkins

07-17-2006, 02:06 AM

I would argue the book is not even helpful -- it's an ancillary aside meant to piggyback off the movie.

And why hand out the books, since it's so "essential and part of the canon" of the movie, if not sell them at a discount for children? But I guess that would imply that "Superman Returns" was a movie geared toward children, and not a nostaligia-laden movie trying to hook on to movies made in the Carter and Reagan administrations.

'Essential' ? Only you have used that word, buddy. As we've explained, and explained, and explained, and explained, the comic books are NOT essential. They are NOT relevant to the enjoyment of the movie by the fans. But they ARE relevant for informational purposes, for those interested, as they fill in a part of the story that is not covered by the movie itself.

Again, that was a decision on the part of the creators of both the moives and the comics. If you don't like it, send them hate mail. Throwing a temper tantrum and calling people names won't make you right.

Smarty Jones

07-17-2006, 02:14 AM

"'Essential' ? Only you have used that word, buddy. As we've explained, and explained, and explained, and explained, the comic books are NOT essential. They are NOT relevant to the enjoyment of the movie by the fans. But they ARE relevant for informational purposes, for those interested, as they fill in a part of the story that is not covered by the movie itself."

I said the books were ancillary; the "essential" was paraphrased and acknowledged even by the creators they were not necessary to anything besides aside entertainment.

In fact, you even concluded they are anciliary; they are "relevant" only for those looking for an aside story created from the same concept of the movie. Their usefulness rank along with "director's cut" clips -- it may be entertaining, but has a marginal shelf life and seen as detached from the movie at hand.

David Atkins

07-17-2006, 02:38 AM

What the creators said was, in effect, that the books were not 'essential' to understand or enjoy the movie. They still exist, however, and the information found within them is still relevant and applicable to the 'Superman Returns' universe.

Andy S.

07-17-2006, 08:23 AM

van-zee

07-17-2006, 11:47 AM

About the review: A Christian website points out Christ allegory in a movie that was chock full of Christ allegory? Well, yeah. If someone dissaproves of the allegory itself, then that's fine. If someone dissaproves of the fact that the reviewer brought up the "out of wedlock" thing, fine. But remember it's a Christian website- more than likely the audience wil be be pre-dominantly conservative. But pretty much everything that the reviewer wrote happened (I totally missed the clown/massacre/molestor thing though).

I wasn't upset about them pointing out the Christ allegory (I actual have a filing cabinet filled with research on the subject that I plan on using to write an all-encomposing book on one day). The main problem I had was the molester thing, the heavy alcohol use thing, and the heavy profanity thing. And again, Baehr has edited his review in several places since I sent him the letter.

aeastwic

07-17-2006, 03:03 PM

This thread is just too sad for words.

Although I've been laughing my butt off.

Go figure.

jhauge

07-18-2006, 09:00 PM

I can't believe there is an argument over the SR prequel miniseries. When the creators of the MOVIE say these are the backdrop stories that explains how these characters arrived to the point of SR the movie, how can there be debate on whether this stories are relevant to the movie?

Richard and Lois think it's there kid. This opens up a whole bunch of issues when it is described as Lois moved on and had a relationship with Richard. If they both think it's theirs, then Lois had to do the deed with Superman, then sleep with Richard after that. Since she did not know when Superman left, she would not know when to "move on".

J. Robb

07-18-2006, 09:27 PM

I can't believe there is an argument over the SR prequel miniseries. When the creators of the MOVIE say these are the backdrop stories that explains how these characters arrived to the point of SR the movie, how can there be debate on whether this stories are relevant to the movie?
I think there's one good reason to doubt them, and that's the big plot point missing from the novelization. I haven't seen an official explanation for that yet, if anyone has I'd love to find out what it is.

Until then, I'm stuck with two possibilities: 1) They wanted to hide the plot twist, or 2) they hadn't decided 100% on going through with that twist, so they decided to play it safe with the novel (and the comics.) If the answer is #2, then the comics are closer to a prequel to the novel than the movie itself.

van-zee

07-19-2006, 01:30 AM

I think there's one good reason to doubt them, and that's the big plot point missing from the novelization. I haven't seen an official explanation for that yet, if anyone has I'd love to find out what it is.

Until then, I'm stuck with two possibilities: 1) They wanted to hide the plot twist, or 2) they hadn't decided 100% on going through with that twist, so they decided to play it safe with the novel (and the comics.) If the answer is #2, then the comics are closer to a prequel to the novel than the movie itself.

The comics don't deal with that plot point at all.

jhauge

07-19-2006, 02:04 AM

Sam T.

07-19-2006, 02:09 AM

This thread is just too sad for words.

Although I've been laughing my butt off.

Go figure.

You and me both!! lol!!

Kyo

07-19-2006, 08:11 AM

Is it me or you guys getting overly worked up over the movie.

I found this thread to be great entertainment as it highlighted points that I missed in the movie like the reference to the Bruiser with earlier Massacre/molster *ok better not start that again. :D as it links to the tattoo on the man's head. Which i thought was a dog and not a clown lol

TBH - for what my opinion's worth despite not knowing there was a miniseries i think it fair to say that it has every bit to do with the movie particularly if van-see has first shown the material from the book and then a article that clearly states that it material is on par with movie. Particularly if it got "Superman Returns" stamped on it, it is virtually is irrefutable to say that it not connected or irrelevant. Otherwise the book would have read "Superman Returns.......but not linked to the movie"

But dun let me stop you guys from still debating over imo a concluded fact.. c'mon guys chill it just a movie.

van-zee

07-22-2006, 04:48 PM