Superman Returns: The World Doesn't Need This Film

[Occhidiangela]

OK, I admit it, I can now be accused of being un-American. I did not care for the latest Superman movie. I took Missus Occhi and my son last night. Maybe I expected too much from the director who brought us the first two Xmen films, which I enjoyed thoroughly.

I am sure many people will like this film, and the SFX were very well done. The story writing was half baked, even though there were a lot of worthy elements introduced. They suffered in execution.

See it on a big screen, if you see it: the SFX are that good. My DVD-TV video set up at home would not do the SFX justice.

Let's accentuate the positive first.

Mild Spoilers Follow.
****************************************************
1. Marvelous special effects, and good blending of special effects with the actors and settings.

2. Kevin Spacey, though he is stuck trying to replay the Gene Hackman Luthor's real estate re-alignment scheme, is convincing as a guy who is smart, survived prison, resourceful, and ruthless. His delivery almost makes one think he is Luthor, rather than Spacey. With one small complaint, his reduced ability to appraise the potential value of land, his Luthor is well played. I blame bad writing.

3. The kid was cute, his dad the pilot was heroic.

4. Jimmy Olson kept the bow tie.

5. The Space Shuttle / Airliner scene was pretty good, apart from the injuries the non-seat-belt-wearing Lois did not sustain from being tossed about an airplane's cabin under various abrupt G loads.

Son's comment on that sequence: "You are supposed to put your own oxygen mask on before you try to help someone else with theirs." I am so proud of my boy. :D He turns 14 today.

6. Excellent polishing of the musical score, John Williams comes through yet again.

7. Eva Marie Saint returns as Superman's Mom, yay! Classy lady.

8. Comment on the true value of a Pulitzer versus an Oscar. Great line.

9. Lois's husband, though hobbled by the writing for his part, makes a nice complement to Superman as man doing his utmost.

10. The Green Kryptonite Shiv was an excellent touch.

11. Great tribute to John Ashton's Gomez Adams and "destroy my own fancy train set" scene with Luthor. :D
===================================================================
Did you get the sense that I was reaching there? I was trying to be nice.

What was wrong with the film. Having seen Reeve's Superman (the first of that entropy ridden series) I hoped we'd get that level of story. We didn't, but we got good SFX and way too much symbolism. The savior/Jesus/Crucifixion/demi-god imagery and wordplay was overbearing and clumsy.

1. A lot of scenes focus on people staring at this, that or the other, for about three seconds too long. Similar to Jackson's emphasis on Big Blue Eyes in LOTR and King Kong. Is this the new requirement at Hollywood film school, as the too-long-drum solo used to be in rock concerts? :P

2. Lois Lane, given the original film that is "five years" prior, is too young, acts too young, and lost the edge that Kidder's independent, Semi Feminist Lois Lane had. She comes off as self-centered, not tough. I think the actress could have done a different turn with better writing, she has a good screen presence.

3. A small sea plane hits a rock outcropping and breaks the rock: no damage to the wing tip. Gimme a break.

4. Lois has no broken bones after three severe tosses about an airliner cabin under g loads, and under the out of control gyration of a flat spin. No bruises. Hair barely mussed. *punches fist through wall*

5. Lois goes flying with Superman, her hair comes back perfect. Her make up is still perfect. At least "I forgot how warm you are" lets us understand why she doesn't get hypothermia while flying with him.

6. Superman catches an aircraft, and stops it from hitting the ground. All to the good, but . . . by the nose? Ask any Audi engineer, a pull is stronger than a push.

With a vertical stop, the nose cone slightly crumples? The nose cone should have crumpled to the next major airframe member, a few feet forward of the cockpit, given that the entire weight of the aircraft in on a non-weight bearing section, meeting with Supe's (very strong) hands as support. Supe is that strong, aluminum and steel in an airliner aren't. Ever seen landing gear? Beefy metal.

This was an unnecessary bit of bad science done to achieve a visual effect (though the SFX were well blended for the sequence) to get Supe to let the plane down gently. Oh, he then rotates it 90 degrees, no one inside gets hurt. As good as SFX are these days, what is with these pointless scenes set in an "IRL" milieu? Supe is secondary world, so all his stuff is secondary world. (Tolkein, On Fairy Stories) His interaction with primary world stuff should be "reasonably faithful" to primary world reality.

!!!BIG SPOILER!!!

7. Supe is lifting an island into the air. Good, he is that strong. As he does it, the green kryptonite that had so recently weakened him, in trace amounts, grows toward him in large crystals. He keeps on lifting the island. This is a complete contradiction within the storyline, and is bad writing. Unless the sun charges him like a battery against Kryptonite and he slowly loses charge near kryptonite? AH, BUT HE STARTS WELL BELOW THE CLOUD LAYER!

And there is more. Part of the Green Kryptonite shiv, (that Lois took out earlier) is still in him, but he isn't neutralized by it as he was mere minutes before. So, kryptonite weakens him to mortal strength, but he can with a green kryptonite shiv in him fly up to find the sun above the clouds and recharge? Now, if the little plane had flown up above the clouds, into the sun, and then he recharged, it might work. That would be playing fair.

This plot hole is a core weakness in the resolution of the conflict, and a violation of Superman canon: green kryptonite renders him mortal. This is in no way faithful to the Supe- Green Kryptonite dynamic. Plot Hole, internal inconsistency, and completely un necessary. (See how a few seconds on the plane "Get me up to sunlight!" would have resolved that.)

Plus, there was no need for any of the GK Shiv to remain in him for removal in the hospital later. Lois pulling it all out with the pliers makes for more sense, and stays consistent, and lets him get back to Supe ness. Bad writing, bad editing.

Singer screws the one plot device that allows Luthor to present Supe with a major set back, which forces Supe to rely on mere mortals. But it gets better. Lex has Supe powerless by field influence of Green Kryptonite, then sticks a Kryptonite shiv into his ribs, but doesn't finish him off? Just lets him fall off a cliff? This from the guy who hates Supe so passionately? Lex, the well portrayed ex con, fresh out of five years in prison, who makes the Kryptonite shiv in the first place? *slams head into wall*

The Writing For This Film Sucked harder than a Hoover on a Naugahyde couch! And don't get me started on that "Lets Copy The Titanic" crap with the broken in half yacht. Blah.

8. Cute kid. Does a lot of big eyes staring. Sporadic development. Seemed like a cute piece of luggage for the film, though I got the impression he was supposed to play an important role. OK, to be fair, he's one mean piano player. ;)

9. The pretty boy who played Supe. Good line delivery, decent screen presence, good Clark Kent, and . . . moody, brooding, pouty Superman. I don't care if he looked a bit like Chris Reeve, he was eye candy, not The Man Of Steel.

10. Supe and Lois "relationship" and the tension of the very valid set up: he's off for five years, she moves on, the jilted lover who deeply misses him, and it is awkward when he returns. She starts a family. But the awkward never seems to move along, it gets stuck in silence, stares, emoting, and very jerky interaction. This could have been the killer feature of the movie, the rich personal interaction that made the story resonate, particularly with her loyalty to her husband and his gentlemanly patience with her as a foil.

It fell flat. I also didn't care for Supe as a voyeur, spying on Lois and her husband.:angry:That is not Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

11. No helicopter (S-76 in this case) without external tanks, that has flown one way to an island off the coast of New York, has the fuel/range to reach a tropical island from NYC aka Metropolis. Lex' last scene was a complete cheat, but I liked it because it was funny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Neutral.

A. "I did Superman." That line sorta works.

B. Edna says "No Capes!" and I am starting to agree. :lol:

C. The paternity of Lois' kid, and the uncertainty her husband has about Lois and Supe, sorta work, but don't get enough treatment to work fully.

D. The Mini Gun, Supe, and the revolver slug to the eye. I liked the crook with the flak jacket withstanding the cops' pistol slugs.

E. The growing crystals, being secondary world, were an good follow up to how Supe built his Fortress of Solitude. The heat of transformation (either heating things up, or more likely, cooling things off as the energy transforms into matter and acts as a heat sink) could have been accomodated for, given how well the SFX were in general. Given the rate and scale of that transformation happening in the primary world, I was glad to see the tremor/earthquake hit Metropolis. Good job on that one.

F. The humor was strained, though not for a lack of set ups. There were a few gems. My son's favorite line had to do with small dogs and dining.

Such potential, such a weak payoff for the money spent.

Occhi

[Cryptic]

You've clearly outgrown the content. Which is sad, but not in a bad way. Sometimes maturity leads directly to the destruction of a willing sense of disbelief.

Story structure problems noted; physics problems disregarded. It's a superhero movie, not a movie on the various effects of aerial disasters on the human body. Superman 93 it's not. Big, fun extravagant summer movie? Check.

[Drasca]

You've clearly outgrown the content. Which is sad, but not in a bad way. Sometimes maturity leads directly to the destruction of a willing sense of disbelief.

While some comic book effects can be overlooked, though we will criticize them, others... rules created by that reality, were broken, and disbelief shattered. Kryptonite not affecting Superman matters. Details created by sustain, the illusionary world's reality.

Occhi's not the only one to find this movie... mediocre. The movie's OK, not great, especially in face of the original, as this remake is almost a copy in many regards, the live (Smallville) and animated (Superman/Justice League) tv series that just do... better.

There was another reviewer that was right. A lot of us will end up watching for nostalgia anyway. Franchise marketing leads to crushing some quality on its own weight. Hey, it could've been worse.

[Mithrandir]

I'm with Occhi and Drasca - this movie was mediocre and nothing more. Somewhere in the range of 3 to 3 1/2 stars our of 5. I think the biggest thing that struck me was that not a whole lot happend, especially considering that the movie was 2 hours 45 minutes long. It also hurts that I have always considered Superman to be one of the most overrated, uninteresting and boring superheros ever.

Kevin Spacey was excellent, as per usual. Brandon Routh was fine I suppose. Kate Bosworth was decidedly ho-hum and I completely concur that she was much too young for the role. She's 23 (and looks it) for chrissake and we're supposed to believe that it's been five years since the events of Superman 2 and she's had a kid? No way. Lois Lane in general was a pretty poor character in the flick.

I felt as though the kid was just not needed - completely superfluous to the plot and just used as an "awwwww" machine throughout the film.

They did a pretty good job with the Richard character I felt. Singer definitely makes the audience question whether Lois reallys "needs" to be with Superman since Richard is so great too. Is it bad that I kept chuckling at how this is the second time that James Marsden has been cast into a love-triangle-participating character in a superhero movie? I just can't look at the guy and not see Cyclops. I'm sorry James if you're reading this (most likely not)!

There were a couple moments in the movie which completely broke my suspension of disbelief (basically all of which have been mentioned so far):

[BIG SPOILERS]

(1) Lifting an island up while stabbed with Kryptonite with Kryptonite crystals in your face... huh?
(2) Lois Lane being injury-free after her tumble around a plane in a deadspin from the upper atmosphere
(3) No one except Lois following up on or even caring about the blackout

[/BIG SPOILERS]

(4) How Superman keeps going into the upper atmosphere and then falling unconscious directly back into Metropolis consistently is just absolutely amazing. This one I can let slide I suppose due to the comic book origins of the movie, etc. but it still bugs me.
(5) I know it is part of the whole Superman mythos and such, but I will say it anyway... HOW CAN NO ONE RECOGNIZE HIM? Alright, I got it out of my system. Have I mentioned that Superman is a lame superhero? In any case, I appreciate that Singer played around with it a little bit in this movie atleast with the kid, Clark Kent avoiding standing next to pictures of Superman, etc.

The short version of my opinion:
Mediocre movie. Superman is a lame superhero. Great SFX. Worth a see in theaters anyway most likely. I wish Singer had stayed for X-Men 3. Spider-Man 3 is going to be a whole hell of a lot better.

[Rinnhart]

If Spiderman's head doesn't crack in half and he doesn't give a hearty symbiote grin for the camera, the movie's a failure.

Besides, Batman is the best superhero (he only let superman win, HE LET HIM WIN).

[pakman]

I always considered Spiderman to be pretty lame, also.

<spiderman>
WAAAAAAHHHHHHH. WAAAAAHHHHH. I love Mary Jane but can't tell her because then someone will find out. WAAAAAHHHH. WAAAAAAHHHHHH
</spiderman>

A lot of other superheros seem to find someone they love and who knows their true identity. I've always thought Batnman was the best because he didn't have super strenghth, weird powers, a magic golden lasso, an adamantium shield, no, he had cool ass gadgets that got him through the day. Who else would have the cajones to drive through a city with a rocket-powered car armed with missiles and other cool stuff (besides James Bond)?

X-men are ok. Dazzler, not ok. "WEE! Look at me! I'm the best at Fourth of July!"

<mited comic book nerd knowledge>

[Occhidiangela]

You've clearly outgrown the content. Which is sad, but not in a bad way. Sometimes maturity leads directly to the destruction of a willing sense of disbelief.

Story structure problems noted; physics problems disregarded. It's a superhero movie, not a movie on the various effects of aerial disasters on the human body. Superman 93 it's not. Big, fun extravagant summer movie? Check.

Not quite. The raw violation of a core plot element in all Superman stories, all superman content, was inexcusably bad writing.

I have gotten better at detecting plot holes in internal inconsistency. I am more than happy to go with willing suspension of disbelief if the writer plays fair, or at least pretty fair. I have not outgrown the superhero genre, or the content, I have outgrown bad writing.

As to the physics problem: it was the plane's physics that I objected to, not the superheroe's secondary world super normal effects and physics. Have you read Tolkein's essay On Fairy Stories? That is what I was using as a baseline for the Secondary World comments. If you haven't, then I understand why you did not understand where I was coming from with that.

As to superhero content, I enjoyed Betman Begins and the first two X men films. (The third yes, but not as much.) Spider Man II was decent, as was Spider Man I. My dislike of those films is tied to the fact that every time Toby McGuire shows up on film, in any film, I want to vomit. Not the writer's fault I have a weak stomach for some things.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

I always considered Spiderman to be pretty lame, also.
<mited comic book nerd knowledge>

Yep. Basically, the Marvel comics of the '60s turned me off on comics in general. Too many special abilities, too much angst. Superman was OK (and, yes, I know he was DC), but there was always the problem of giving him a true challenge, especially as powers were constantly being added. Batman was good, but the villains were a Little repetitive and boring after a while (shades of Dick Tracy). My favorite was always Thor -- what's not to like about a Viking god with a big hammer? Even Douglas Adams couldn't resist;)

As to the movie, I'll give it a bye. There's too many good things to do to waste half a day on something mediocre. Thanks for the reviews -- I trust the Loungers more than the NYT reviewer (who, by he way, managed to review the movie without expressing a single definite opinion:)).

--Pete

[roguebanshee]

<spiderman>
WAAAAAAHHHHHHH. WAAAAAHHHHH. I love Mary Jane but can't tell her because then someone will find out. WAAAAAHHHH. WAAAAAAHHHHHH
</spiderman>

I think he told her in the early 90s, in the comics at least. In any case, she knows it and has known it for a decade or more.

[LemmingofGlory]

***SPOILERS***

OK, I admit it, I can now be accused of being un-American. I did not care for the latest Superman movie.

Well, I can't say it was a let down, but that's only because I didn't have any expectations for it beyond "popcorn movie." I was hoping for more depth of character, but I didn't really expect it.

Supes is Kal-El, the last surviving being from an alien world. But he was raised as Clark Kent. Is that who he is on the inside? I don't know, and that part of the movie bothers me. All I saw was Kal-El flying around as Supes most of the time -- largely because that's the only way he can get Lois to pay him any attention. But then, I guess everyone reacts differently to finding out the object of their affection is unavailable. It usually hits me pretty hard and it feels bad, but damn if Supes didn't just throw that to the wind and go spy on Lois instead. Now, I don't fault Superman for dealing with the situation very poorly. He was away from all human contact for five years, and I bet he spent a large chunk of that time daydreaming up a fantasy about him and Lois. So when he comes back, I can imagine him having a lot of trouble letting go. And a bit of voyeurism is hella creepy, but Supes is so out of it he apparently doesn't even notice, and what's more, the writers don't want us to notice!

It's a very human thing for emotions to get the better of you sometimes. But if the writers are going to turn Supes into a creepy voyeur, it should be emphasized how creepy that is! I like flawed characters. I don't like their flaws swept under the rug just because "Oh, he's Superman. It's fine for him to scope out Lois with his x-ray vision several times throughout the course of the movie. And it's further justified because she had Supes' kid in the first place." I would've liked it a lot better if Supes had a moment where he realized, "Whoa, I'm getting totally obsessed with a married woman. I even spied on her FAMILY." Then maybe he could go have a supertalk to his mom, cry into his superpillow, or spill his superguts to random folks at the bar, on AIM, or something. (Why doesn't he have any friends?) Unlike Spiderman, we get no glimpse of his life outside of being Superman. Is there anything there, or is Clark just a shell?

And in a mythos with so many people with superpowers, why isn't there a superheroes.com dating service? It'd be so much easier to share yourself with someone who's gone through the same thing, wouldn't it? Something like:

Code:

I AM A SUPER: hero/heroine
SEEKING A: hero/heroine
FOR SUPER: friendship/dating/sex/anything I can get/comic or movie crossover
OUTNESS: no one knows I'm a superhero/to family/to friends/at work/everywhere

You did great work outlining the good/bad points of the movie (Spacey's perfomance was the highlight for me), but one last thing I'll add is about that damn kid. The Kid's development you called "sporadic." To me, it seems just as inconsistent as the kryptonite. One minute he's on an inhaler, the next he pushes a big-ass piano into a thug, and a moment later he can't (well, won't) even pry open a door. It makes me wonder: if Superman hadn't found the yacht, would he have drowned, or would he have watched his parents die while his super-genes kept him from drowning? He's damn lucky. SuperOrphan just doesn't have the right ring to it.

-Lem

[Merlinios]

I always considered Spiderman to be pretty lame, also.

<spiderman>
WAAAAAAHHHHHHH. WAAAAAHHHHH. I love Mary Jane but can't tell her because then someone will find out. WAAAAAHHHH. WAAAAAAHHHHHH
</spiderman>

I don't know--that never really bothered me until the recent movies, when they made him kind of a wuss. Maguire is not superhero material. His Parker wasn't nerdy enough and his Spiderman wasn't...Spiderman-y enough.

(besides James Bond)

I do believe that says it all right there. Plus he's Sean Connery. Can't argue with Sean Connery.

The review in general here seem to be pretty dead-on about modern movies. You get popcorn flicks with at least one or two major plot holes that just aren't worth my time (most of the time). I can't justify paying at eight dollar admission (with no disposable income to speak of...gogo college) for something I will complain about to everyone I can for a week. I guess the fact that good movies never come to either of the towns I'm located in doesn't help.

I don't know. Maybe my expectations are a little high. My mom was doing a lot of film studies in college, though she has since progressed to "feel-good" movies because she...likes to feel good, I guess. They are no longer an entertainment outlet for her; they are an escape. Back to my main point, I think it may stem from not from flawed movies as such, but from flawed viewers. The makers are giving the public exactly what they want; good special effects, a little eye-candy, fairly predictable plot--who cares if there are holes in it the size of Montana?

I realized this when I went to go see Matrix Reloaded (There's an eight bucks I'll never get back!). Movie progresses. Crowd is better than normal (Kids are not running up and down the aisles with light-up tennis shoes.). Until the one interesting scene in the entire movie. Neo stands in the room with the architect. No one gets punched in the face or shot for a whole ten minutes. The entire crowd begins talking so loud I can barely hear what's going on. Guess it's just not a good time for mainstream movies.

I (as most college students) appreciate all of the above, except perhaps the predictable plot, but they're going soo far overboard. First thing to mind is Arwen in Lord of the Rings. She is completely superfluous. I don't think she had a spoken word in the books. People looked at her, made the inevitable comparison to Galadriel, and she kind of...played backup. Aragorn's love interest was never meant to drive the plot; it was only supposed to drive him.

Sorry to hijack your thread like that. I have no seen Superman yet, and it looks like I'm not going to. It appears to have modern movie syndrome™. Two or three awesome elements (Spacey, nostalgia, special effects) coupled with some mediocre stuff (writing, directing, the kid) and some large plot holes that will probably leave me rather unsatisfied. Have there been more than a handful of movies in the past decade that did not follow this pattern?

--me

[Drasca]

First thing to mind is Arwen in Lord of the Rings. She is completely superfluous. I don't think she had a spoken word in the books. People looked at her, made the inevitable comparison to Galadriel, and she kind of...played backup. Aragorn's love interest was never meant to drive the plot; it was only supposed to drive him.

Thank you! Liv Taylor is hot and all talking elvish to the audience, but was given waaay too much emphasis and screentime. Arwen was at best, a minor character.

We get movies that are directed towards the lowest common denominator, driven completely by marketing. Quick and easy buck for the investors. Mild sedative for everyone else.

[pakman]

Thank you! Liv Taylor is hot and all talking elvish to the audience, but was given waaay too much emphasis and screentime. Arwen was at best, a minor character.

We get movies that are directed towards the lowest common denominator, driven completely by marketing. Quick and easy buck for the investors. Mild sedative for everyone else.

I completely agree. I rarely go to the theaters anymore. One because I can't afford because of college, and two because most of the movies look stupid. I usually see a movie a year after it premiers when it comes to DVD and I can get it from netflix. However, there are movies that I would like to see in the theater, but don't get the chance, Pirates of the Caribbean comes to mind. I will see the next one this Friday (July 7), though.

<sacasm>
I think that "post Brokeback Mountain" the Lord of the Rings movies should be remade to emphasize the latent homosexuality between Frodo and Sam
</sarcasm>

[Occhidiangela]

I completely agree. I rarely go to the theaters anymore. One because I can't afford because of college, and two because most of the movies look stupid. I usually see a movie a year after it premiers when it comes to DVD and I can get it from netflix. However, there are movies that I would like to see in the theater, but don't get the chance, Pirates of the Caribbean comes to mind. I will see the next one this Friday (July 7), though.

<sacasm>
I think that "post Brokeback Mountain" the Lord of the Rings movies should be remade to emphasize the latent homosexuality between Frodo and Sam
</sarcasm>

It's been done very effectively by Cassandra Claire.

It need not be filmed. Thanks go to Hawkmoon, who first advised me of that site.

Occhi

[Rhydderch Hael]

<sacasm>
I think that "post Brokeback Mountain" the Lord of the Rings movies should be remade to emphasize the latent homosexuality between Frodo and Sam
</sarcasm>

The film ended with a trio of curly-haired boyish figures giggling and bouncing in bed together. You don't need to remake it.

[Occhidiangela]

The film ended with a trio of curly-haired boyish figures giggling and bouncing in bed together. You don't need to remake it.

Of course, if it was redone, it would be call "Sore Sir Eregion", "The Burning Piles of Mordor," or the "Flaming Third Eye of Sauron." :P

Occhi

[Merlinios]

"Flaming Third Eye of Sauron." :P

What, no "Queer Eye" reference?

Actually, the fact that all of this is even an issue with Tolkien's work says something to me about a combination of the rampant homophobia in America and the over-analytical tendencies of the (upper IQ) movie-goers. Whether or not Jackson, or even Tolkien himself intended anything of the sort, what the hell is the deal here? Does it change any aspect of the book/movie at all? Put it this way: what if Sam were a woman and this (phantom) relationship still existed? Would anyone even blink?

--me

[Occhidiangela]

Actually, the fact that all of this is even an issue with Tolkien's work says something to me about a combination of the rampant homophobia in America and the over-analytical tendencies of the (upper IQ) movie-goers. Whether or not Jackson, or even Tolkien himself intended anything of the sort, what the hell is the deal here? Does it change any aspect of the book/movie at all? Put it this way: what if Sam were a woman and this (phantom) relationship still existed? Would anyone even blink?

--me

Oh no, did I miss the "Queer Eye for the Straight Maia" joke? It appears I did, I must be losing my edge. :D

Your assertion that homophobia is the root of this analysis seems to me inverted logic. :shuriken: Secret and forbidden lust is an old trope, even among straights. (Note the Gimli-Galadriel bit in the Secret Diaries link in my previous post, with the Celeborn twist.) The entertainment industry's efforts to present male homosexuality as a valid state of being -- overtly campy humor is part of that -- seems more influential than homophobia in this line of jokery. Without that advocacy, Will and Grace never gets made, nor does Queer Eye, nor does the excellent part Greg Kinnear played in "As Good as it Gets" get such a strong reception. (Didn't he get a best supporting nod for that one?)

I doubt Tolkein considered love for one's fellow man to embrace pederasty and buggery (as he would have seen it), but who knows what equal opportunity lechery lurks in the hearts of men? :blink: The Shadow knows! Whoa, wait a minute, the Shadow of Mordor knows! Hmmmm. Maybe that is why Tolkein had to destroy it! :lol: Fighting the inner demon with pen in hand . . . but I digress.

I sensed that Jackson was playing to the estrogen-rich fan base in his casting of Aragorn, Boromir, Frodo and Legolas. Given that LOTR fan base, he probably considered attraction among homosexual men as a bonus appeal, if he considered it at all in his story boarding.

When Tolkein said "the tale grew in telling" I don't think he referred to Legolas' tight buns:lol:(whoops, wrong tail!) nor imagined all of what people would bring with them and add to their interpretation of his story -- the Bomb = the Ring for one thing.

Jackson might have been tempted to further rework the story a bit, but Sam would have killed him if he had tried anything too extreme! :lol: (ref in the previous link)

Occhi

PS: The Shadow knows line is from an old, famous radio show. I miss radio mystery dramas, they were such good stories.

[Merlinios]

Your assertion that homophobia is the root of this analysis seems to me inverted logic. :shuriken: Secret and forbidden lust is an old trope, even among straights.

I think this touches the point I was trying to make (but my sleep patterns have become so erratic that I'm no longer sure what my intentions on a previous day were). Anyway, I was trying to hit on the forbidden part there. If one or the other were female, I don't think you'd have the forbidden part of that at all. As I said before, no one would have looked twice. This rather frightens me.

The entertainment industry's efforts to present male homosexuality as a valid state of being -- overtly campy humor is part of that -- seems more influential than homophobia in this line of jokery.

All well and good, and I do hope their efforts to do so can be a little more influential. Humor is often the first step to acceptance, but I don't know that any progress is being made in this area anymore.

Without that advocacy, Will and Grace never gets made, nor does Queer Eye, nor does the excellent part Greg Kinnear played in "As Good as it Gets" get such a strong reception. (Didn't he get a best supporting nod for that one?)

I think my intended point was that we shouldn't need the advocacy. Sadly, however, we do. I must learn to think as a progressive rather than looking at ideal ends.

I sensed that Jackson was playing to the estrogen-rich fan base in his casting of Aragorn, Boromir, Frodo and Legolas. Given that LOTR fan base, he probably considered attraction among homosexual men as a bonus appeal, if he considered it at all in his story boarding.

Actually, I completely missed that angle. Guess I'm playing to stereotypes a little here, and it seems the good-looking females draw in more crowds of men than the men do for the wimmins. I guess when I get one of those job things I'll probably slow down on the criticism of fan-draw movies. Liv Tyler's role (I hesitate to even call it Arwen, so far does it diverge) could have been cut completely. In fact, I know people who have not read the book, yet complain about that single aspect of the movie. I guess we won't see many movies in "true" form unless independently wealthy (and talented, hopefully) directors/producers/whatever (other than Mel Gibson) emerge. For now we'll have to settle for Matrix sequels in which there is more fighting than talking by screen time and Superman titles in which Clark Kent is nearly non-existant.

When Tolkein said "the tale grew in telling" I don't think he referred to Legolas' tight buns:lol:(whoops, wrong tail!) nor imagined all of what people would bring with them and add to their interpretation of his story -- the Bomb = the Ring for one thing.

Perhaps he did not know the specifics. People read rather a lot into literature, and one would assume that a master such as Tolkien would realize this, at least on some level.

Jackson might have been tempted to further rework [/B] (screw up) [/B] the story a bit...

Stupid modern sex obsession.

PS: The Shadow knows line is from an old, famous radio show. I miss radio mystery dramas, they were such good stories.

Closest I can get you there is probably Elmore Leonard on tape. 'Course, I don't know that he's actually available on tape, but there's some good stuff there regardless. Maltese Falcon is also of interest in that genre, but somehow, the author escapes me at the moment, despite the fact that there are TWO copies floating around my house.

...Galdariel...

Butchered like a true <pick one*>!

*Peter Jackson fan
*Avid Movie-goer
*Battle.net denizen
*Create your own!

--me

[Occhidiangela]

"Galdariel" Whoops, thanks for catching that. :blush: Went up and fixed it.

"Create your own!"

How about "sloppy proofreader." ;) Yes, the shoe fits.

Occhi