Superman Returns

[sal]

I saw it last night....didn't like it.

The movie looks and sounds really great. But it can't cover up the predictable story, EXTREMELY corny dialogue, and a wooden performance from Brandon Routhe that will make everyone miss Christopher Reeve that much more. The jokes were bad, and the emotion stale. Typical Hollywood crap.

I'm starting to get really sick of these lackluster comic book adaptations that are supposedly the new wave of American action films. Its running its course fast. And this is coming from a big fan of comics.

[jazzbo]

I'm gonna skip it. Never really liked the Reeves movies, I'm not a big Superman fan. Looks like one to miss. People tell me plot elements of this that seem really lame.

I have been missing movies all summer for logistic reasons so this one will be just one of many I'll miss.

[Rooster_Ties]

Can't stand the new Superman movie commercial they're running (at least here) with the rap/rock soundtrack. Rap/rock + Superman?? - you've got to be kidding.

I'll probably skip it. I think I saw the first and maybe the second of the recent (last 15 years or so) Batman movies - and they left me totally nonplussed (well, maybe the first one was not half bad).

I did see the most recent Batman film, however, within the last year ("Batman Returns"?? - was that the title? -- or maybe "Batman Begins" -- something like that) --- and I thought it was MUCH better than I had expected. I hesitate to say I really loved it, but my expectations were pretty low going in - and they were greatly exceeded.

Edited June 29, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[Quincy]

and a wooden performance from Brandon Routhe...

When I first read that I thought you wrote Brandon Burke.

WOW, what a career change!

[Alexander]

I saw it last night with my family, and we all LOVED it. Is Routh a good actor? No. To be totally honest, Reeves wasn't that great either, but he was a great Superman and Routh does a fine job. Spacey was in top form as Luthor. Honestly, this film is far more reverent towards the Reeve films than anyone had a right to expect. References were dropped left and right to the earlier films (anyone notice where the Kryptonite was originally found? And in what year?). Is this the kind of thing only hard-core nerds like me would even notice? Damn right! Singer has made a film that plays to the nerds and the little kids, and fuck everybody else!

[Brownian Motion]

The New York Times

Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

June 30, 2006

Op-Ed Contributor

Truth, Justice and (Fill in the Blank)

By ERIK LUNDEGAARD

Minneapolis

In the first screen incarnation of Superman, the Max Fleischer cartoons that ran from 1941 to 1943, each episode's preamble informs us not only of the origin and powers of this relatively new creation (Krypton, speeding bullet, etc.), but also the kinds of things he fights for. It's a shorter list than you think. Before World War II, Superman fought "a never-ending battle for truth and justice." Back then, that was enough.

By the time the first live-action Superman hit the screen — Kirk Alyn, in a 1948 serial — the lessons of World War II, particularly in the gas chambers of Europe, were obvious. That's why Pa Kent tells young Clark he must always use his powers "in the interests of truth, tolerance and justice."

It wasn't until Superman came to television in the 1950's that the phrase became codified in the form most of us remember it: "a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way."

You wouldn't know this from the many articles that have been written about Bryan Singer's film "Superman Returns," which opened this week. Few of these articles treat the Man of Steel as if he's a process, the malleable product of different writers and eras. Many, in fact, talk about how unchanging he's been over the years. And quite a few quote the line "truth, justice and the American way" as if it's something Superman always stood for — even though you won't hear it in this film.

Where did that specific phrase come from? According to Mark Waid, a former DC Comics editor, it first turned up on the innovative "Adventures of Superman" radio series, which ran, off and on, from 1940 to 1951. It was the radio show, not the comic book, that introduced many facets of the Superman myth: the editor Perry White (rather than George Taylor), Jimmy Olsen (rather than a nameless copy boy) and kryptonite. Superman never flew until he flew on the radio. In the comics, he was still leaping an eighth of a mile.

Since Superman was a work in progress, it makes sense that the preamble was a work in progress, too. Fans first heard "Up in the sky! Look!" rather than the other way around. Those who did look thought they saw not a bird but "a giant bird." At one point the Fleischer cartoons even scrapped the whole "speeding bullet" business in favor of more weather-oriented metaphors: "Faster than a streak of lightning! More powerful than the pounding surf! Mightier than a roaring hurricane!"

Then, in fall 1942, fans of the radio show became the first to hear about Superman's battle for "truth, justice and the American way."

At that time the war in Europe was not going well. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was sweeping across Africa, and the German Army was driving toward Stalingrad. The Japanese had been turned back at Midway but they were still invading Pacific islands. We were all fighting for the American way. Why shouldn't Superman?

As the war turned in our favor, though, the additional phrase didn't seem as necessary. By 1944 it was gone, and for the remainder of the radio show, Superman devoted himself to the fight for tolerance — as in the 1946 episode, "Unity House," in which Superman battles the Ku Klux Klan.

It took the paranoia and patriotism of the cold war era to bring back "the American way" — this time in the "Adventures of Superman" television series, which ran from 1952 to 1958. Every week, young, impressionable baby boomers were greeted with the phrase as they sat down to watch the Man of Steel combat crooks and communist spies.

After the television show, "truth, justice and the American way" became synonymous with the Superman saga; indeed, every Superman since has had to grapple with the phrase's legacy. The 1966 Saturday morning cartoon, "The New Adventures of Superman," tried a strategy of substitution: children were told Superman's fight was for "truth, justice and freedom."

Others tried omission. In the premiere of the 1993 television series "Lois & Clark," Lois asks Superman why he's here on Earth. His response — "To help" — isn't good enough for her, and she suggests something more dynamic. "I mean if you said, 'I'm here to fight for truth ... or justice.' " He nods: "Well, truth and justice. That sounds good."

The most recent incarnation to use the 1950's phrase was the 1978 Christopher Reeve movie, "Superman." When Lois first interviews the Man of Steel, she asks why he's here, and he responds straight-faced: "I'm here to fight for truth, justice and the American way." It's the first time Superman himself ever uses the phrase — a bold move considering how cynical the country had become after the Vietnam War and Watergate. That cynicism is reflected in Lois's response: "You're going to end up fighting every elected official in this country!"

Some people are now objecting to the fact that "Superman Returns" omits the phrase. Perry White asks his reporters to find out more about the Man of Steel after his five-year absence. "Does he still stand for truth, justice, all that stuff?" he says. Right-wing blogs are already red-faced at the slight.

There's no reason to be upset. Superman is right back where he began: fighting a never-ending battle for truth and justice. That should be enough to occupy any man. Even a Superman.

Erik Lundegaard, an editor at Minnesota Law & Politics, writes about movies for MSNBC.com.

Home

* World

* U.S.

* N.Y. / Region

* Business

* Technology

* Science

* Health

* Sports

* Opinion

* Arts

* Style

* Travel

* Jobs

* Real Estate

* Automobiles

* Back to Top

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

* Privacy Policy

* Search

* Corrections

* XML

* Help

* Contact Us

* Work for Us

* Site Map

[Joe G]

I can't believe I just read all that.

[Rooster_Ties]

Some people are now objecting to the fact that "Superman Returns" omits the phrase ["truth, justice and the American way"]. Perry White asks his reporters to find out more about the Man of Steel after his five-year absence. "Does he still stand for truth, justice, all that stuff?" he says. Right-wing blogs are already red-faced at the slight.

Give me a fucking break.

Do these people not have anything better to do, than worry about whether Superman is fighting for "The American Way"???

Edited June 30, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[jazzbo]

"Truth, Justice and the UPCOMING ELECTIONS!"

[BruceH]

The thing that really concerns me -----Lois Lane now has a kid? Wha??

[Noj]

I saw it today. It has the least dialogue of any two and a half hour movie I've ever seen, and as a result the characters have very little depth. Still, it was entertaining and the effects were very well done. I had fun watching it, I guess that's all that matters. It's just a comic book.

[Chuck Nessa]

I saw it today. It has the least dialogue of any two and a half hour movie I've ever seen, and as a result the characters have very little depth. Still, it was entertaining and the effects were very well done. I had fun watching it, I guess that's all that matters. It's just a comic book.

Stop to think some huge entertainment entity spent $xx million dollars to give you "fun".

We be really fucked up.

[(BB)]

Stop to think some huge entertainment entity spent $xx million dollars to give you "fun".

We be really fucked up.

[Alexander]

Stop to think some huge entertainment entity spent $xx million dollars to give you "fun".

We be really fucked up.

I'm thinking some huge entertainment entity spen $xx million in the hopes of making $xxx million, nothing less and nothing more.

[Noj]

I saw it today. It has the least dialogue of any two and a half hour movie I've ever seen, and as a result the characters have very little depth. Still, it was entertaining and the effects were very well done. I had fun watching it, I guess that's all that matters. It's just a comic book.

Stop to think some huge entertainment entity spent $xx million dollars to give you "fun".

We be really fucked up.

What am I, a symptom of a greater problem here? I love movies with great dialogue and nuanced character development too. In fact, my favorite movies have those aspects. I'd rank this one alongside a movie like Twister, which doesn't rank high for me. My opinion lies squarely between what Alexander likes and Sal dislikes.

[ep1str0phy]

To play devil's advocate: I thought it was fucking brilliant. Yes, many of the characterizations are woefully one-dimensional; yes, the film requires a suspension of anti-capitalistic/anti-Hollywood/anti-bigandstupid predilections; yes, we're dealing with yet another variation on a nigh-exhuasted pillar of American iconology, taking its cues from prior adaptations (and those--not particularly interesting from a dramatic standpoint... now, anyway). But the film takes a few crucial chances, inasfar, at least, as concerns the central elements of the Superman mythos--which is, take it or leave it, (arguably) as much a pivot on the pop zeitgeist as our favored jazz iconology (not to demean the greats, who'd be happy to see, let alone spend the box office returns/budget of your average summer shitbuster--that's a much bigger problem, no doubt). And, as a comic fan and Superman pusher since my diaper years, I'm decidedly biased.

Dramatically: the film takes a massive risk in questioning the role of Superman as a static character--yes, an iconic, symbolic figure (and christ, the Jesus overtones ring loud), but one who (in his own little narrative scheme) is seldom confounded by the forces of change. He got married in the comic books, killed--it's still status quo. Now (SPOILER--does anyone here care?) he's got a kid. His girlfriend is married. It's a hell of a dramatic pothole to circumvent (if the inevitable sequels pop up), but they've endowed the character with some legitimate conflict--nothing that will alter his position in the cultural cosmos, but enough to remind the casual fan that we are, under the proper circumstances, dealing with a character of (literally) infinite dramatic potential.

Acting/Script: I like Routh's Superman, but only because I buy into the proportions of the character. I'm willing to suspend certian vital criteria in light of the fact that--really--Superman and Clark Kent are caricatures. Even in the comics. There's a life form in there--an alien, a god trying to cope with, live in a world below his powers--that's the interesting character. Routh seems to understand this (Singer does, at least)--it's in all the big beats (the romantic set pieces, the family drama), written deep into the narrative; it's arguable that Routh hits each and every one... and if you didn't notice the change from the Reeves version, then you probably weren't predisposed to look for it in the first place.

-And shit, it's a superhero movie. I get my dose of Godard on the weekends. But I'll be damned if my three-year-old heart didn't skip a beat watching Superman lift a continent. Coming from a relatively young (and far less mature) member of this BBS--it's pretty cool.

Edited July 1, 2006 by ep1str0phy

[Alexander]

To play devil's advocate: I thought it was fucking brilliant. Yes, many of the characterizations are woefully one-dimensional; yes, the film requires a suspension of anti-capitalistic/anti-Hollywood/anti-bigandstupid predilections; yes, we're dealing with yet another variation on a nigh-exhuasted pillar of American iconology, taking its cues from prior adaptations (and those--not particularly interesting from a dramatic standpoint... now, anyway). But the film takes a few crucial chances, inasfar, at least, as concerns the central elements of the Superman mythos--which is, take it or leave it, (arguably) as much a pivot on the pop zeitgeist as our favored jazz iconology (not to demean the greats, who'd be happy to see, let alone spend the box office returns/budget of your average summer shitbuster--that's a much bigger problem, no doubt). And, as a comic fan and Superman pusher since my diaper years, I'm decidedly biased.

Dramatically: the film takes a massive risk in questioning the role of Superman as a static character--yes, an iconic, symbolic figure (and christ, the Jesus overtones ring loud), but one who (in his own little narrative scheme) is seldom confounded by the forces of change. He got married in the comic books, killed--it's still status quo. Now (SPOILER--does anyone here care?) he's got a kid. His girlfriend is married. It's a hell of a dramatic pothole to circumvent (if the inevitable sequels pop up), but they've endowed the character with some legitimate conflict--nothing that will alter his position in the cultural cosmos, but enough to remind the casual fan that we are, under the proper circumstances, dealing with a character of (literally) infinite dramatic potential.

Acting/Script: I like Routh's Superman, but only because I buy into the proportions of the character. I'm willing to suspend certian vital criteria in light of the fact that--really--Superman and Clark Kent are caricatures. Even in the comics. There's a life form in there--an alien, a god trying to cope with, live in a world below his powers--that's the interesting character. Routh seems to understand this (Singer does, at least)--it's in all the big beats (the romantic set pieces, the family drama), written deep into the narrative; it's arguable that Routh hits each and every one... and if you didn't notice the change from the Reeves version, then you probably weren't predisposed to look for it in the first place.

-And shit, it's a superhero movie. I get my dose of Godard on the weekends. But I'll be damned if my three-year-old heart didn't skip a beat watching Superman lift a continent. Coming from a relatively young (and far less mature) member of this BBS--it's pretty cool.

Well-said, sir!

[Big Al]

Saw it over the weekend. It's pretty good, maybe not worth shelling out $8 to see on the big screen, but definitely worth renting on DVD.

Spacey as Luthor was inspired. Made me forget all about Gene Hackman, not an easy thing to do!

Trivia time: The kid that played Lois/Superman's son is a distant relative, found out from my mother-in-law. It's almost a Spaceballs moment: "I am your father's father's half-sister's daughter's husband!*" "So, what does that make us?" "Nothing!"

(*what does that make us, anyhow? Third cousins? Twice removed??????)

Edited July 3, 2006 by Big Al

[kinuta]

I thought it was all right but pretty quickly forgettable. For all the fanfare I thought it was rather flat and uninspiring.

Batman Begins is the benchmark 'superhero' flic for me.

[clifford_thornton]

Prefer the Spiderman franchise by a mile to this one...

[BruceW]

To play devil's advocate: I thought it was fucking brilliant. Yes, many of the characterizations are woefully one-dimensional; yes, the film requires a suspension of anti-capitalistic/anti-Hollywood/anti-bigandstupid predilections; yes, we're dealing with yet another variation on a nigh-exhuasted pillar of American iconology, taking its cues from prior adaptations (and those--not particularly interesting from a dramatic standpoint... now, anyway). But the film takes a few crucial chances, inasfar, at least, as concerns the central elements of the Superman mythos--which is, take it or leave it, (arguably) as much a pivot on the pop zeitgeist as our favored jazz iconology (not to demean the greats, who'd be happy to see, let alone spend the box office returns/budget of your average summer shitbuster--that's a much bigger problem, no doubt). And, as a comic fan and Superman pusher since my diaper years, I'm decidedly biased.

Dramatically: the film takes a massive risk in questioning the role of Superman as a static character--yes, an iconic, symbolic figure (and christ, the Jesus overtones ring loud), but one who (in his own little narrative scheme) is seldom confounded by the forces of change. He got married in the comic books, killed--it's still status quo. Now (SPOILER--does anyone here care?) he's got a kid. His girlfriend is married. It's a hell of a dramatic pothole to circumvent (if the inevitable sequels pop up), but they've endowed the character with some legitimate conflict--nothing that will alter his position in the cultural cosmos, but enough to remind the casual fan that we are, under the proper circumstances, dealing with a character of (literally) infinite dramatic potential.

Acting/Script: I like Routh's Superman, but only because I buy into the proportions of the character. I'm willing to suspend certian vital criteria in light of the fact that--really--Superman and Clark Kent are caricatures. Even in the comics. There's a life form in there--an alien, a god trying to cope with, live in a world below his powers--that's the interesting character. Routh seems to understand this (Singer does, at least)--it's in all the big beats (the romantic set pieces, the family drama), written deep into the narrative; it's arguable that Routh hits each and every one... and if you didn't notice the change from the Reeves version, then you probably weren't predisposed to look for it in the first place.

-And shit, it's a superhero movie. I get my dose of Godard on the weekends. But I'll be damned if my three-year-old heart didn't skip a beat watching Superman lift a continent. Coming from a relatively young (and far less mature) member of this BBS--it's pretty cool.

Yeah, I got to go along with you on this one; brilliant.

Saw it over the weekend. It's pretty good, maybe not worth shelling out $8 to see on the big screen, but definitely worth renting on DVD.

Spacey as Luthor was inspired. Made me forget all about Gene Hackman, not an easy thing to do! ...

This was very good and Spacey was top dog until the end, which Singer did botch. As smart as Luthor was... ooops, won't give anything away.

BTW, saw the Spidey trailer and it looks very very intriguing. Definitely a must see.

[Soul Stream]

I actually liked this better than the original. Was never a huge fan of Reeve in that role, although people have become very nostalgic about it now for obvious reasons. Margo Kidder was never much of a turn-on as Lane....

So yeah, dig the new one. Effects really kill. The plane going down blew me away. Also liked the thought of bringing Brando back.

But please, the "I can't see that Clark Kent is Superman 'cause of the glasses" is REALLY ridiculous in 2006.

[JohnJ]

Batman Begins is the benchmark 'superhero' flic for me.

Agreed. Saw this on cable on Sunday and was very impressed.

[BruceW]

I actually liked this better than the original. Was never a huge fan of Reeve in that role, although people have become very nostalgic about it now for obvious reasons. Margo Kidder was never much of a turn-on as Lane....

So yeah, dig the new one. Effects really kill. The plane going down blew me away. Also liked the thought of bringing Brando back.

But please, the "I can't see that Clark Kent is Superman 'cause of the glasses" is REALLY ridiculous in 2006.

Yeah, even the kid saw that Kent was Superman (he just didn't want to believe it). Lois's boyfriend also saw the similarities but let Lois discourage the thought.

[BruceH]

Well, to be fair, the whole "Clark Kent is just Superman with glasses" thing is a basic convention of the Superman comic which you just have to accept if you want to go along for the ride. Like the fact that Superman can fly, which doesn't make any sense, either.