Joker has always been the same deranged psychotic killer ever since his first appearance in 1940. The only time that ever changed was during the campy period of the Adam West Batman TV show during the '60s. After the TV show was over, Joker went back to his original deranged self.

Supposedly, The Dark Knight movie is based on the The Killing Joke graphic novel. If so, Joker will be very very deranged.

Yes, but when both heroes also have decades-long histories of OTHER notable villains, why show the same ones again and again? Considering the years between sequels and new movies, I relish the chance to see something new and fresh and not Lex Luthor again with, what I felt was, a completely pointless scheme.

It's a logical comparison, if you want to see the difference between how two "dead" franchises were revived and how you felt one succeeded and one didn't. Which clearly, many people are in the opinion of.

I think it's a perfectly cromulent comparison. Both were franchises that previous to this, had absolutely awful movies and had previous histories of being rebooted (with Kevin Smith, Nicolas Cage, Aronofsky). But, both still had a strong fan base as the characters were still liked (Smallville, animated series).

I hear everyone's Superman complaints and for the most part they are still valid. I still grade this movie positively because now I want to see a sequel and I am excited over the character again. I've never really liked Superman. Ever.

They are cultural touchstones; characters of immense popularity. YOU put up the 150-200 million budget and see if you pick a lesser character.

When I think of these characters, Joker and Luthor come to mind. They come to mind for anyone with a passing knowledge of comic books.

These films have to play beyond the comic core. Begins got away with it because the story was about Batman and how he...began. Now that's established, the production is wisely choosing to head into Jokerland, because that's what people know.

How was Luthor's scheme pointless? I hear this moaned over and over, but nobody can answer that question.

He is readily ackowledging that he will destroy the eastern seaboard of the US, and quite a bit else eventually. That would precipitate a catastrophic collapse of the world economy-
that's bad enough. The punchline is that he expects that the harsh crystaline strata will have people clamouring to own and set up residence on it.
Who will need land in this location now? to serve what interests?
You only have to ponder this for a second or two to come to the conclusion that land rates for what masses remain non-crystalized will sky-rocket as people scramble to grab the last acres of what is actually usuable.

This is a scheme that would better fit a character like The Joker.
The only way you could seriously read this, is if the perp was so deranged that he actually believed this would ultimately work because like a child he refuses to take into account what isn't convienent to his needs, or if it was intended as a catastrophic practical joke.

Lex Luthor shouldn't be interchangeable with The Joker though ( he is even seen at one point prancing around and doing his best unhinged charming/psycho reading "c'mon say it....say it...WRONG!").
This is yet another perfect example why I feel the Singer doesn't really understand these characters and is the wrong person for this series.

That's kind of how I read it. Kind of.

At no point in the film does it say that Luthor understood the complexities of what he was doing, just a vague outline of the results. It just gave him that immediate satisfaction of control and the promise of wealth and power.

New Krypton probably wasn't going to work, but in the timetable of the film, it gave Luthor the results he craved.

it makes perfect sense. And it falls in line with the character.

the character of Luthor as a spiteful, child-like moron?

I guess that would fit in with a Superman who can get close enough to the woman he loves to knock her up, and then afterwards feel like there isn't anything tieing him down here at the moment so he can just take off for 5 years to hopefully find something better (better here being something related to his heritage).
Even if he didn't realize that she had been pregnant, the fact that it was even a possiblity should have meant that he felt a special tie here, and that the future was new and exciting for him- looking at a daily intimate relationship with the woman he loved.

the more i look at this film, the more it falls apart in my hands.
Almost every character motivation seems contrived to hit certain plot points within the film- none seem genuine or organic.
And then when you combine that with plot points that are bodily stolen , not just from another film, but from a film with the same characters, it really sends the whole thing plummeting to the ground in flames.

I realize liking a film is subjective- but theft is theft. We can argue about the way Singer interperts characters and their motivations and that ultimately hangs on a subjective like or dislike of the end product. But there is a point where something ceases to be a homage and just becomes lazy or thoughtless repetition (even if the artist doesn't realize it).
The repetious, melodramatic allusions to Christ in this film are clearly in that category here.
In Donners film, it was almost a single throwaway line that altered and recolored the whole conotation of the premise. That was brilliant. It was witty and brief.
Just the opposite here. Why should we be thinking of Christ, specifically, rather than any other martyr. Because of the child Christ sired before he was crucified? Because he had the whole adoration of the planet behind him when he made his great sacrifice?
The Christ analogy definitely has purpose when used in the context of Jor-el and his sacrifice.
It serves no real purpose from the perspective of Kal-el in this story told here.
It is yet one more example of Singer and this film stealing ideas and using them, and not understanding the thought or actual purpose behind them.

I'm wondering if the word sophomoric would be a good description of Singers contribution now to Supes history.

then again, I'm sure a lot of people will find that term more applicable to me and my posts

No. That's trolling 101, and your words.

As for the rest... Good lord.

I'm reaching a point now where I'm debating with people who really WANT to hate the film no matter what. It's become a game to them to dissect the film into bits.

I guess if you couldn't find the spirit of the thing, there's no point in trying to understand how it was intended.

I think the very thing some love, is the very thing others hate. And that is the extreme homage to the original Donner films. I remember when I first saw 'Superman Returns', the airplane scene, Routh , it just all seemed so great, but after repeat viewings, I can't help but feel it was a needless retread of the origianl film.

I understand the supposed need for Luthor in the film, he is the arch villain for Superman, but at the same time, I think they should of went a different angle with him. At points they did, when he was jealous and comparing Superman to a God, it was great, but once we got back to the real estate plot it seemed to loose steam. In my humble opinion, the best bet would of been to take Luthor the "Lex-Corp" way. Have Superman come back, have Luthor now be this respected ex-criminal that the city trusts and have him use that trust against Superman. It could of made an excellent film, while developing all the characters. Instead, I felt the movie was a retread that only served one purpose and that was to bring a child into the series.

I've pretty much given up following up on the haters' posts in this thread. If I don't like a film, I pretty much just ignore it and move on to something, but the haters just sit there and wait to take another potshoot at the film when a new post shows up.

Patrick, I really hate to think of myself like that, even though that seems like the case sometimes.
However, Superman Returns has become a good representation of everything I hate about genre and series/franchise films and the reasons why I see applying to and affecting future product...and not just more Superman films.
Thats why I get a little passionate about it.

Like I said above I recognize that a lot of this is subjective. I'm glad you guys found another movie you like so much. Personally I'm hoping for more thought and originality in the next Batman, Bond, Spider-man, etc, all of whose last films I thought were excellant. Should they go the same way as SR and become (imo) overflowing with maudlin sentimentality and betray their core characters for cheap melodrama, I'd slam them just the same.

No one is taking potshots, I see nothing different than the usual film discussion.

Luthor only used one crystal to create New Krypton. He has several left. As Lex Luthor said to Lois, "You're not seeing the big picture here!" Luthor's continent will be based on "advanced alien technology" and people will clamor for his "high-tech beachfront property". Earlier he states how he will create a society (under his control, of course) with advanced alien weapons, vehicles, etc. The "harsh crystaline strata", as you call it, is only the foundation for a new Krypton-like civilization. You really think people won't want to buy into that?

So true.

And I admit that I've engaged in that type of conduct before on other movies. Seeing how unproductive and bitter all this b-tching reads makes me chagrined over previous posts on such topics.

I never saw anything in the film to suggest that the alien technology benefit went beyond the size and replication rate of the crystals. Certainly we never see Luthor pondering over or making plans for any other application.

Also , the point about him knowing about the technology in this film, and making reference to having been there before opens up a whole slew of issues in regards to continuity.

Besides, the whole notion that he could be comfortable wielding this technology after only cursory exposure strikes me a little like seeing a 10 year old grabbing his fathers circular saw and annoucing that he is going to add an addition onto the house. The film doesn't really supply any authority for him to be making that kind of pitch and not coming off as a Joker-like coo-coo.
Also- why is Superman then beaten , stabbed, and (again) thrown powerless into a body of water to drown? Why wouldn't Luthor have kept superman chained up and powerless, and then used him as the textbook reference for all this new technology? I'm certain at some point he might have some questions. Threatening Lois and the child would have been an easy way to force capitulation from him too.
If you are going to ignore common sense in pursuit of another goal then maybe the goal should be a worthy one. Just swiping material and adding more sweetener doesn't seem like that noble enough a goal to put aside issues of common sense.

"See, it's different from the original because in my version Luthor savagly beats and stabs him before they throw him in the water where he can be rescued later just like before"
"it's that edge of cruelty and violence that makes Luthor more real to the kids this time"

(those aren't direct quotes from Singer, but I could easily envision that mindset to justify these points)

he had several left
what's her name dumped them out the door of the chopper right before take off

"Tell me everything, starting with crystals."

also, notice how when he puts the final stop action on the jet the nose crumples in and the seats slam forward? he wasn't struggling to stop the jet, he was struggling to stop it without ripping it apart or turning the passengers into jelly

and as for the kryptonite (and this will be seen as a grasping at straws cop-out by the haters) not only was it not a whole island of K, it was a copy of K which hadn't been through the physical transformation and radiation from the supernova that real kryponite went through

(gasps)
I forgot about that line. You're right, I was wrong. That totally invalidates that criticism (of keeping superman around to serve a purpose).

That point would have possibly made a bigger impression if had been supported better later in the film.
It would have been nice to see some throwaway lines or bits of business relating to what else Luthor expects to 'create' or employ with this crystal technology. The film laser focuses on the land mass as an end in and of itself- and this is supported by his comments to Miss Teschmacher-lite and Lois.

that would be entirely plausible.
The only thing that subverts it is the way Superman reacts after he lands on it.
The script wants him to be weak enough to beat up and stab at that point, but not at another, yet the conditions haven't really changed. It is still the same K.
If it was weakly diluted when he landed on it, why was he so overcome?

Or heaven forbid that people feel the film missed on it's intentions, and attempt to point that out. If you're so frustrated with so called nitpicking or criticism against what many felt didn't work in the movie, I can just as easily say that people who enjoy the film refuse to accept any flaws.

People also get extra defensive over a film they love, just as people are especially critical about a film they wanted to enjoy but were dissapointed.

Complaining about "haters" here seems silly, especially when there really isn't any flaming or name calling going on.

Actually, I wished people who have objections about the film would read the first, oh, 600 posts in this thread to see if someone has already raised the same issue. I did my time on this thread 6 months ago, most of the nitpicks have been raised and discussed over and over again.

You mean like this (taken directly from the DVD subtitles (excludes some off-topic phrasing)):

"Kitty, while you were doing your nails and ordering fur coats online, I was busy unlocking the secrets of one of the most advanced civilizations in the universe."

"You see, unlike our clunky earthbound forms of construction, the technology on Krypton, Superman's home world, was based on manipulating the growth of crystals."

"...Imagine: cities, vehicles, weapons, entire continents...all grown. To think that one could create a new world, with such a simple little object. It's like a seed, and all it needs is water."

he was standing next to lex, who had some real kryponite in his pocket