Dreams Of Noise

Officially impressed (finally.)
Don't like the costume. Superman wears bright, vibrant colors.
The action figures suck worse than any DC tie-in EVER.
The actor's voice suggests that he should have subbed for Topher Grace on That '70s Show.
But the goddamned goosebumps do not lie. And Spacey is Spacey.

From:

Spacey is what sold me. Finally, finally a scary Luthor, one who really enjoys what he's doing....

From:

Agreed. I was watching the trailer, searching for words to describe the difference between Hackman and Spacey, and it hit me.
He's...he's visibly savoring his evilness.
I've never SEEN someone savor before.
I don't know whether to cry like a baby or take a hot shower with a wire brush.

From:

brithistorian.livejournal.com

Damn indeed! And much to my surprise, Kevin Spacey appears to have done really well as Luthor.

From:

drzarron.livejournal.com

I'm way up in the air about this one. The actor looks like a teenager. Chris Reeves had that youthful look but looked like an adult. This guy just looks like a kid, and even worse as Clark.

I don't like the look of the actress playing Lois, she's so non-descript. I'm not grabbed by her looks.

And I'm not ready for a Superman who makes rookie mistakes. The clip with the airliner bugs me. Supe is better than that, he knows better than to try and catch a plane by the wing. Perhaps its just the way they edited the trailer.. I hope so.

I also am not thrilled with Luthor being able to just waltz into the Fortress... again, have to see how it plays in the film.

On the other hand...

Spacey can so rock this part and I think he will.

Frank Langella is always good and will rock of Perry.

The flight efx look great and hearing the swell of the John William score choked me up.. one of my favorite movie scores.

So, I'm not convinced.. yet.

From:

Word. My precise problem with Brandon Routh is that he looks like a Keanu Reeves wannabe. Clark and Kal's Excellent Adventure. They've got all these head shots, cape shots, arms-folded shots... but the one on the cover of the Planet is the one that makes him look like a skinny kid in a costume.

Kate Bosworth is nice looking, but, yeah, it's a fairly generic nice-looking. Five years ago, I'd have begged 'em to cast Claudia Christian as Lois.

I don't mind a Superman making rookie mistakes... if he's a rookie Superman. Which he isn't.

On the other hand....

Spacey and Langella indeed rock.

The flight looks really good. The shot over the street is similar to a shot I've had in my head for my own superhero movie for twenty years now.

They'd better have something new musically, though. I adore the Williams score as much as you do... and it's not the score of this movie, dammit.

From:

You know who I thought would have made a perfect Lois Lane? Lara Flynn Boyle. She's got the look and the attitude for Lois, and the acting chops to play such a legendary role. Margot Kidder was good... hell, Gene Hackman was enjoyable even though his take on Luthor was as a brilliant goof. Guess it just depends on how they want to put the characters forth to the audience, though.

Claudia Christian... I mean frickin' Ivanova as Lois? Nah, never work. I mean, Lois is half the reason Supes saves Metropolis. If they cast Christian, Supes would have to save the criminals from her. :) Speaking of Ms. Christian, seen this yet, Tom? Looks like filk fodder to me, if it wasn't ridiculous enough on its own.

From:

No, I'd, ah, missed that one. I'll have to peruse it in some detail, but I dunno.

And I dunno about LFB. Never been a fan of hers.

From:

I agree about Lara Flynn Boyle not being Lois material.
She'd make a GREAT Ursa or Livewire, though...

From:

Oooh. You're right about Ursa. Yeah. Yeah. And Gary Oldman as Zod, and Robbie Coltrane or Stephen Fry as Non.

From:

Oldman as Zod.
Non? You want to stick guys THAT verbose, THAT witty, as Non?
Huevos grandes, mi amigo.
Those cats have genuine acting chops, but I'd rather see a hulking, sinister, less chatty Non. A third banana who can bench-press the whole plantation, so to speak.
I'd offer Triple H, maybe, or Goldberg.
They've both thought (wrongly, may I add) that they could handle speaking roles.

From:

Oh, Goldberg was fine in Looney Tunes Back In Action. On the other hand, I don't mind a redefinition of Non -- someone who doesn't speak much, and when he does it's scary. On the third hand, you could be on the right track... maybe Glen Jacobs (Kane)?

From:

selenesue.livejournal.com

Don't confuse the actor with the character. The well-spoken Terry Hogan has been playing the fearsome Triple H quite convincingly for many years.

I think Goldberg would be a better fit in the part though.

Non compos mentis? [grin]

From:

I'm just saying that Mr. Levesque is not the thespian he imagines himself to be. He plays the villain quite well, as long as the villain is a steroid case with a history of cheap shots and a well-known eternal upper hand (in this case, provided by marrying the boss' daughter.) I see such a man as PERFECT Non material, save for the glibness that he definitely has in interviews (his Howard Stern interviews are probably my favorite bits from 20-odd years of commode radio.)
Stephanie McMahon (Mrs. H?) has been lobbying, unsuccessfully but rightfully so, for a Conan role. He just doesn't have the heroic charisma, any more than he has popular support backstage any more.
Hulk Hogan will always be Thunder Lips from Rocky III, and Ric Flair's book did nothing to dispel that notion.
Goldberg, while downright erudite off-camera, seems to be the better physical actor; he could play a wordless brute with the same (or greater) ease.

From:

A small correction: As

suburbfabulous implies, Triple H is actually portrayed by Jean-Paul Levesque nee McMahon. Terry Bollea plays Hulk Hogan.

From:

selenesue.livejournal.com

Sigh. That's your fandom but not mine, you know best. In any case, I was talking about Hulk Hogan, whom I almost didn't recognize when I met him in person.

The late, lamented Andre The Giant might have been a good fit for the part too.

From:

I'm betting that this little farce doesn't last one whole season.

From:

You're right that it doesn't make sense on its own that Luthor or for that matter anyone could just stroll into the Fortress of Solitude. On the other hand, they do seem to be keeping continuity with the previous movies, including the design of the movie version of Supe's retreat... which anyone can simply enter on foot. There weren't any defenses installed, any tricks to it like the massive key from the comics, or so on. I give them a bit of credit just for the care to continuity they're showing.

Luthor... Spacey. Spacey, Luthor. Good gods, we may actually see Luthor played seriously, rather than as a brilliant buffoon like we got with Hackman.

I'm having a problem with Lois Lane having a kid more than anything. Just no. The thing with the airplane... it's possible Supes wasn't trying to catch the plane by the wing; maybe it needed to come off, we'll have to see. It does seem fairly ridiculous that a man of his intelligence would try to stop a falling plane by pulling on the wing, though.

Still... it's the Man. I must go see it on the silver screen.

From:

theturbonerd.livejournal.com

This is probably a nod to the scene in the 1st movie where Supes saves Air Force One by substituting for the destroyed engine.

Not realizing that the plane was already in too steep a dive to attempt the same thing is a mistake I can see happening, even with Supes. Even if it is a Rookie mistake, the guy's been away for 5 years. Maybe he's out of practice.

Nah, even I don't believe it. They blew it. Rookie mistake. Looks dramatic though.

From:

Looks dramatic though.

Which is, of course, exactly why they did it that way.

From:

sdelmonte

Still not too impressed. The actor is just too young, and I get a sense that there is little here that we haven't seen before, and better, in the earlier films.

And it's probably not fair for me to want Gene Hackman back, but I do. Spacey will be fine, but he's just not Hackman (or even John Glover). At least this time Lex is out and out bald.

None of which means I won't be at the theaters to see this.

From:

annathepiper

I just watched the new trailer myself, and I'm a little bit more hopeful than I was before about this flick, yeah!

I'm not convinced this new kid is a proper Supes, but I don't think I mind his Clark. He looks pleasantly doofy, and kind of reminiscent of Christopher Reeve's Clark, but not quite as doofy as that--which I think is not inappropriate if they're trying to call back to the first two Reeve flicks.

Spacey looks really, really promising as Luthor indeed.

And I too am concerned about giving Lois a kid--not that I don't get the idea of showing that Lois has Moved On(TM), it's just that the Smart, Cute Kid is a potential danger sign of a movie being about to suck.

From:

selenesue.livejournal.com

I bet he didn't just "waltz into" the Fortress, it took someone with his brilliance to find the way in and to afford the crane to pick up the giant key, etc. Who was it who said, I'll be cheering for my hero the whole time but that caped freak will probably win anyway?

If they have called this "Superboy" I could have believed in Brandon's look, I suppose... but then again, we were iffy about Chris Reeve when we first saw the publicity photos before the movie, too.

The Lane child is just too much of a departure from Canon for me to cope with, though. He's cute, he must die.

From:

Eh. Only one problem there: in the movie continuity, there isn't a Key. Per the movies, it doesn't take any more-than-human effort to enter the Fortress. Remember movie #2? Clark walks in after giving up his powers. If Clark with no powers can walk in alone, Luthor can easily do it, seeing as he had things Clark didn't have: helicopters, warmer clothes... henchmen...

From:

Sure, anyone can just waltz into the Fortress. If they know where it is.

This seems to be set after Superman II, in which Luthor found the Sanctum Kryptonum. Which begs the question, why DIDN'T Kal-El install some kind of security system?

From:

faxpaladin.livejournal.com

For that matter, didn't the Fortress self-destruct at the end of II?

From:

Not that I remember. Just the franchise. ;)

From:

faxpaladin.livejournal.com

It's been a very, very long time since I saw the movie, but I distinctly recall seeing Luthor hauled away in a SnowCat or some such while Supes and Lois stood in the snow and watched the Fortress self-destructing -- it seemed perfectly logical to me; its principal security measure (in the movie) was simply being where no one but Superman could find it, and once its location became generally known it was too dangerous to leave standing.

Mind you, this was on TV, not in the theater, so it may have been a scene cut from the theatrical release that found its way back into the TV version.

From:

Coulda been. I only saw that one in the theater. I really didn't like it -- several aspects bugged the hell out of me, particularly the wiping of Lois' memory (an old, cheap trick I've never liked) and the entire subplot with the bully, especially the part where a repowered Supes uses his powers on a hapless human.

From:

"and the entire subplot with the bully, especially the part where a repowered Supes uses his powers on a hapless human."

A-MEN, Tom!

I can deal with Bullied Child's Wish Fulfillment. I can deal with That Oughtta Show Him.

But, at the end of the day, I prefer that my heroes not be bullies themselves.

From:

And, of course, there's the fact that Superman II gave us Phenemonal New Powers That Make No $%@# Sense".

I can deal with Kal-El appearing in several places at once. I can almost deal with the Orkan *ahem* Kryptonian Finger of Power.

But..."Super Cellophane"?!

From:

Agreed. Dumbest. Power. Ever.

From:

It's a toss up between that and Superman IV's "Great-Wall-of-China-Repair Vision".

From:

I guess I'm missing something, but I'm not sure why everyone keeps saying that this is set after movie #2, rather than being after one of the later films. What clue am I missing?

One big difference between the movie Superman and the Man of Tomorrow from the comics is the intelligence level and knowledge base available to each. The comic book Superman is a genius, with scientific training in a number of fields and access to Kryptonian scientific and technical information leaps and bounds beyond that of human advancement or achievement. This knowledge allows him to do things, come up with solutions to problems, that aren't available to anyone else. Look for instance at his Superman androids, which he built to serve in his stead when he's unavailable and to guard and maintain the Fortress of Solitude in his absence. The comic book Fortress has all sorts of defenses for just this reason; he has the knowledge and ability to install them.

The movie Superman... is a man. A normal man with a good heart... who just happens to be invincible, who can fly, who has the strength of a Titan... but his knowledge? We've seen that he's smart. He knows several human languages, he learns and reads quickly, he has a quick wit and can plan. We don't see him using any genius-level insights or scientific knowledge outside of what any intelligent human being could know.

From:

"I guess I'm missing something, but I'm not sure why everyone keeps saying that this is set after movie #2, rather than being after one of the later films. What clue am I missing?"

I can tell it's set after the second film because Lex learns of the Fortress in that film. If Returns were set before II, it would make no sense for Lex to discover in II what he'd "already", by ret-con, found.

Now, nothing says that "after II" has to mean "before III".

From:

We're assuming that the filmmakers are going for continuity with the prior films. I've made that assumption myself, several times in this discussion thread alone. However... what if they aren't going for story continuity but simply visual, thematic continuity with the prior films? It's possible that by story, this is a differing history. I think at the moment, you and everyone else are right in thinking that this movie is part of a chain proceeding from after Superman II and perhaps falling after III or even IV. We'll have to wait and see what details they reference in dialogue to know for sure.

It's going to be a long wait.

From:

Be nice if they had some music from their own frickin' movie....

From:

I'm hoping that they do more than simply recycle Williams' iconic soundtrack, myself. I notice that the credits at IMDb.com are showing Williams' credit as "Non-original music," referencing music from the score of movie #1, with "original music" by John Ottman. They also list the orchestration for this one by Damon Intrabartolo. I suspect they're relying so heavily on the Williams score in previews to pump up the nostalgia aspect in hopes of putting butts in seats on opening day. I know I can't hear Superman's theme without my ears perking up, so if that's what they're doing, it's blatant manipulation and worse, it's WORKING, damn them. ;)

I would like to hear some of the original music, though. As closely as they seem to want to follow the visual style of the prior films, I'm curious to see just how heavily Ottman leaned on Williams' style for this one's score.

From:

What's interesting is that Ottman is also listed as one of the film's editors.

From:

Tom:

LOVING the thought of Oldman as General Zod.

Not quite understanding the hostility toward Hackman's portrayal, though. No, he didn't revel in being evil the way Spacey seems to, but he did play "delightfully unhinged" nicely.

From: