Oh, I think you can compare them. I just don't see how you can equate any of those instances with the Christ imagery/obsession in Superman Returns. It's galling to think that Singer really believes we didn't "get" that aspect of his movie.

I don't mind the Christ stuff if the movie is good.

The reason The Matrix: Revolutions sucked ass was because it was horribly written, acted, boring, silly and a dull conclusion to the series. It's like the Wachowski's went on a war movie watching marathon, found every corny cliche, and put it into that movie.

I didn't mind the last Superman, it wasn't great but I found it somewhat enjoyable.

Okay, that's what I meant to say.

This really seems to be a sticking point with you, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone else ever give a shit about it. Are you Jewish, by chance? Is it something you find personally offensive?

And secondly, as has been pointed out, this was done in the FIRST Superman movie. Singer didn't CHANGE anything. It's the established Superman mythos for film and TV (see the Smallville references above). And sorry, but the movies and TV shows ARE Superman to 85% of the world. Comic book readers are a small, small number in comparison.

Since there were so many references to be "tiresome" , can you please list them here? I'd love to hear about the dozens of references I must be missing (I count maybe three or four in the film, and three of them are in one sequence)?

Thanks.

People who didn't see the overbearing Christ imagery in Superman Returns probably fail to see any homosexual subtext in Top Gun...

I must be dumb. I just want a Superman movie where he throws a fucking punch.

You know, it's one thing that Singer wanted to make a "romantic, nostalgic" movie.

He only half succeeded. There wasn't anything really "romantic" in Superman Returns. The leads had no chemistry and he turned the protagonist into a silent, creepy stalker.

I think Jimmy Olson had more lines than Superman...

"Nostalgic", on the other hand, is one way of describing how he simply ripped off the themes, story elements, dialogue, and overall tone of a 28 year old movie without adding anything substantial to the mix.

Yeah, that's a little dumb.

It saw it in Supes Returns, it was blatantly obvious, I just wasn't bothered by it and didn't really care about it.

Not Jewish, and it's none of your damn business if I was. Superman's creators were, though, and they deliberately crafted his story around a specific theme. The Christianity message came off as yet another religious agenda pushed onto us, this time grafted onto Superman. Singer's film could easily have still explored the concept of sacrifice without the sermonizing.

No doubt the "my only son" remarks were all over Donner's film, but that was pretty much the extent of it. The rest of Superman's story was one of being raised on Earth, learning his true heritage and then going out to claim his legacy as a Kryptonian. One can even argue that General Zod in Superman II is akin to Pharoah, whom Moses challenged, "Let my people go."

As for the nature of religion in Superman and his other media incarnations, I recall nothing of this likening to Christ in Adventures of Superman. I don't recall any of it in any of the assorted animated Superman series over the years, either though I admittedly haven't seen all of them. In short, I reject your claim that this Christ paradigm is a long-standing, ingrained part of the Superman mythology.

Regarding your made-up statistic about 85% of the world knowing Superman exclusively through movies and TV shows, I can only say that regardless of who's telling the story, they're working from source material that was constructed a specific way.

I can't provide the detailed list that you seek, as I've not seen the movie often (having disliked it and all that) or recently enough to recall. But I do have Singer's own words attesting to the fact that he crafted a Superman story around the religious paradigm and iconography. It's hard to only kinda, sorta, casually tell a Superman-as-Christ story.

I agree with this.

I was also extremely disappointed that Routh in the beginning when he got out of the pub...and opened his shirt..did not transform to Superman like we saw in Superman II. All we saw was the "S" on his shirt and then scene cuts. Sucks.

It was magic seening Reeves running in the alley in Superman II and smoothly changing to Superman as he ran. That beginning was too quick and too cut in returns.

Except that when you see the Donner Cut of Superman II, it's clear Donner intended Superman to be Christ. In the first movie there was also the whole "the Son becomes the Father and the Father becomes the Son" bit (which was paid off in the Donner Cut) and throughout the movie Jor El reminds Kal El of his purpose and why he was sent to Earth. The Moses elements were leaked over from the source material (that being the original comic book).

In the Golden Age comics, Superman was indeed Moses. But in the Donner/Singer movies, he was clearly Jesus. Donner is as much to blame as Singer in that one regard. The other problems with the Singer movie (the stalking, the missed opportunity at showing a world that truly moved on from Superman, and the kid that was an interesting thematic idea that was totally mishandled) have only Brian Singer and his writers to blame.

Brandon Routh looks back at Superman Returns

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AYKwyVAC" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

The Christ allusions in the original Donner film came out of left field- and I don't think anyone in the audience was expecting them. But they fit they fit the situation so perfectly, that it was as if this subtext had always been there and we never realized it.
It also wasn't harped on. It was that one specific reference that in a flash re-contextualized the whole myth and turned it from a cartoon movie into something that felt deeper and more substantial at the its core.
The problem with Singer going to the same well was that, unlike Donner when he originally did it, he brought nothing new to the table. He hammered home the same point in a superficial and, at the same time, pedantic way.

Was it a conscious riff or a subconscious allusion? Sending the baby off is not a plot point absolutely unique to the Moses myth, but being Jewish they would obviously have absorbed it in that form early on.

...or Predator

Fixed for Family Guy reference.

How about a ....Sucker Punch?

How about... 300 Sucker Punches?

It's been going strong since the death of Superman, which was nearly 20 years ago, and Kingdom Come really reinforced it. But then, for the last 50 years or so DC has made Superman enough of an empty vessel that he can fit nearly any "do no evil" belief system.

OK, you're just being funny now, right? "Religious agenda"? "Sermonizing"? Holy shit. I hope you never take a film school class (I've taken seven), because Christian symbolism is peppered all throughout movie history, in works that are not religious (some of which I pictured in a previous post).

Gee, I wonder how many people ran out of Superman Returns and joined their local church...because that would be the intended result of a religious agenda and sermonizing, right?

Seriously, some people are just way too sensitive to these touches. (Is Singer even Christian?)I didn't think so. Since I've seen it many times, and have an eye for such things, let me list the myriad ways that Singer slams his point home:

1) Superman remarks to Lois that despite her saying that the world doesn't need a savior, he hears people constantly crying out for one.

2) The stabbing of Superman in the side by a (Kryptonite) "spear". This is one of the wounds of Christ, and I can assure you that it went over 99% of the public's head, including most Christians.

3) This:



4) His "death" and resurrection. Kind of a stretch, since as far as I know Jesus was never in the hospital, and, well, actually DID die. But I'll give it to you.

And that's it from what I can tell. And all of that takes up about 5 minutes of screen time, and a SINGLE line of dialogue.

So I ask again, how is this beating us over the head with a message? It's nothing that hasn't been in countless other similar heroic tales, and was probably missed by a good chunk of the viewing audience.

Superman > Jesus > Ayn Rand.

You omitted the heavy emphasis on Jor-El's "only son" speech, which was also used as the voice-over for the teaser trailer to ensure that we were conscious of that story element from the beginning. (That's not a wild accusation; that's basic marketing.) Also, the CGI replication of Brando's floating head was visually dominating on screen as though he was God.

I've outlined my feelings on the film and provided my reasoning based on the nature of the character as originally created, remarks made by Singer himself confirming his intention to rewrite the religious allegory of Superman and your own detailed list of specific moments within the film that clearly depict the subplot. I am not prone to baseless statements and I am contented that my position on this is well-grounded. I'm equally certain that the other thread participants would prefer to get back to sharing casting news, speculations and rumors about the next Superman movie.

As for your other remarks, I've nothing to say that won't likely result in my suspension from this community and frankly, you're not worth it.

Can't we nix all of the Christ/Moses/religious metaphors and keep it to comic stuff?

I think he mean the "F" word as in Forget You!!