Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Superman Returns

This is topic Superman Returns in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001122

Posted by William Valdes (Member # 2690) on 06-21-2006, 10:44 AM:

I got a chance to see this during a screening at our theater this past Sunday. I thought it was very good. Lots of great special effects shots and the sound is pretty spectacular. Kevin Spacey and Kate Bosworth (as Lex Luthor and Lois Lane) did a really tremendous job with their roles. Brandon Routh as Superman/Clark Kent did pretty decent job as well. The story was interesting but a bit slow. It felt very much like the original Superman films especially during the opening credits which were exactly the same style as the originals. 4/5 stars.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-26-2006, 07:39 AM:

Superman Returns: An IMAX 3D Experience

We received our print Friday night (15 boxes containing 88 reels). After a couple 12-hour shifts, I have completed print assembly and it's been screened as of late Sunday (a few hours ago). We've got a rental Monday (today) at 7:00pm, and our first public show is 10:00pm on Tuesday the 27th! (Useless to the review, but forgive me, I'm tired!) [Big Grin]

I must say, the 3D is impressive! Four different sequences, which add up to a total of 17 minutes and 26 seconds, were DMR'ed to be 3D, and the result is remarkable, especially if you're a skeptic (like I was) believing that 2D live action could be not "converted" to a convincing 3D. Now, it doesn't look like it was shot in 3D, which might be due to the sequences being CG-heavy in general, but it DID NOT look like flat planes hovering back and forth on a Z-axis. There's subtle depth as well as vast, there's shape and geometry and contour, and it was better than I was expecting. The choice of scenes wasn't too bad, either: two 6-minutes-plus sequences were the highlights (the first one much better, in my opinion), a 3-minute flashback sequence about 17 minutes into the movie, and the final 1-minute before the end credits.

Granted, there were artifacts. One scene in particular had thin hairs on the boy's head which, in the right eye (the one added for the 3D) completely disappeared. Some edges of foreground objects look odd, here and there. But, for the most part, it's a fabulous effect that audiences will like, and that I'll watch many times over.

The story was good, but seemed to drag because of some extended action sequences. Without the 3D, the dragging might be more apparent.

I loved Kevin Spacey's performance! He's just good, anyway. Kate is hot. Brandon did a good Clark Kent and had the Reeves' mannerisms down. There was light humor, intense moments, and feel-good Superman-saving-the-day bits throughout. It was a fine Superman movie.

I think comic fans and the die-hard-devotees will enjoy the treatment, but I could probably pick out one or two of the fine points they'd nit-pick at. Suspended disbelief aside, there were a couple that I would point out, too ... but, whatever, it's a fantasy movie.

And, oh boy, that original theme music! Blasting through the IMAX auditorium, it was better than I'd ever heard it! The opening titles get your blood pumping, alright ... it's too bad they didn't do those in 3D as well.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-26-2006, 10:35 PM:

Brian,
Since it originated on HD, how did it look compared to other DMR releases like, say, POSEIDON, which I thought was very pretty?

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-26-2006, 11:58 PM:

I'll have to watch it a bit more closely, but I think it's very crisp and smooth. Past DMRs (Polar Express excluded) always had a subtle film-grain-static effect that I haven't yet noticed in this one. Lots of sharpness, and a few soft focus scenes. As DMRs go, this is one of the finest.

Minor issues with the polarizer timing, which I may adjust later ... at the end of the 3D sequences, the right eye goes black BEFORE the flashing red symbol appears to remove glasses, and the polarizer doesn't move until after that symbol comes and goes.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-27-2006, 12:21 AM:

That sounds annoying. If I were to actually watch this in a theater, I'd watch the less-bothersome 100% 2D version.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-27-2006, 03:22 AM:

Granted, a great movie. Kids will eat this one up like mad..in as well as the adults who saw the original WB 1978 release. Just the teenagers......well.. they are never with any program...

Yes Kevin Spacey did an excellent portrayl of Lex Luthor (as with Gene Hackman of the original). The moll in this one wasn't really at original and ditsy as Eve Teschmacher-played by Valerie Perrine.

The 157 minute run time did go by rather well..

4 out of 5 stars..

Posted by Jake Lafree (Member # 3656) on 06-27-2006, 03:29 AM:

Yes, I agree with Mr. Fullmer, 4/5 stars. The movie was long, but not one of those annnoyyyying long movies. I thought it moved by nicely. Sounded great in Dolby Digital too.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-27-2006, 08:45 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
less-bothersome 100% 2D version.

Well, the least off-putting way of viewing this movie would be waiting until it was legally available to download off satellite broadcast and had just magically appear on one's perfect home-movie viewing system.

Of course the 2D version would be unobtrusive, but the 3D is a cool novelty. Putting on glasses just to view parts of it can't be THAT much of an imposition, can it? [Big Grin]

After all, I spent about 24 hours of my life assembling and making sure this thing would be projected with the presentation Bryan Singer and Warner Bros. hoped would make audiences orgasm all over their seats. If all my efforts were for naught, then I'd feel a little insignificant, wouldn't I? [Wink]

For all I care, I HOPE they leave their seats dirty. It would be a compliment.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-27-2006, 01:07 PM:

I agree that this is a very good movie. Like the originals, it realizes that Superman fighting crime is relatively boring, and what makes Superman stories work is the supporting cast. But unlike the originals, it doesn't sacrifice those characters for lame-ass comic relief which is completely off-key with the rest of the movie. That's not to say that this movie isn't funny. It is. But it's not the Three Stooges. It has more of a dry wit.

The other thing that I liked was how Superman's powers were portrayed. Yeah, he's strong. But he still has trouble with that plane. And yeah, he's fast. But he can't spin around the frickin' Earth and turn back frickin' time. Man, those original movies sucked. Sure, they had great music and iconic imagery, but they play like they were written by a two year-old. This one works. It's a good relaunch. But it doesn't come close to BATMAN BEGINS.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-27-2006, 05:55 PM:

Schindler, you disappoint me. I thought you had better taste in movies. [Smile]

quote: Mike Schindler
But unlike the originals, it doesn't sacrifice those characters for lame-ass comic relief which is completely off-key with the rest of the movie.

I have to disagree if it's the interplay in the '78 movie between Lex (Gene Hackman) and Otis (Ned Beatty) to which you're referring.

quote: Mike Schindler
Man, those original movies sucked. Sure, they had great music and iconic imagery, but they play like they were written by a two year-old.

I think "Superman" (1978) is the best comic book movie ever made. Watch it again...maybe you'll notice that much of the writing is intelligent and clever.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-27-2006, 06:35 PM:

I agree with you about Superman '78. It is an awesome movie. The only thing I don't like about those films is the character of Otis....if Lex Luthor is really the ruthless guy he claims to be, he'd kill Otis just for being an annoying little toad. The fact that he doesn't sort of undermines his ruthlessness. But it's still a great film.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-27-2006, 07:24 PM:

Could it be that Lex deep down is insecure and that he keeps Otis around to boost his ego? After all, he did tease Otis about his weight in a way that simultaneously addressed his own insecurities.

"The article [in the newspaper] says Superman was clocked flying at over 200 miles per hour."

"Otis, do you know what's so significant about the number 200? It's your weight and my IQ."

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-27-2006, 08:45 PM:

Eve: Lex, why do so many people have to die for the crime of the century?

Lex: Why? You ask why? Why does the phone always ring when you're in the bathtub? Why is the greatest criminal mind of our time surrounding himself with total nincompoops?

Otis (enters): I'm back, Mr. Luthor!

Lex: Yes. I was just talking about you.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-27-2006, 08:57 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
I think "Superman" (1978) is the best comic book movie ever made. Watch it again...maybe you'll notice that much of the writing is intelligent and clever.

Mike, I know you're a big fan of the original, and it's OK, really. We all have our flaws [Razz]

But, no, I just rewatched the first two a couple of weeks ago, and they were actually worse than I remembered. I don't see anything intelligent or clever about Superman spinning around the planet in order to go back in time. It's actually the opposite of those things. For one thing, it's not intelligent, because it makes no goddamn sense. I'm willing to believe a man can fly, but spinning backwards around the planet to go back in time? That's going just a little too far, especially since there is no setup or explanation. Which leads me to why it's not clever. The writers (which have God knows how many Oscars between them) wrote themselves so far into a corner, that they had to pull this nonsense out of their butts. Then in the second one, you've got people talking in space, and amnesia kisses, and all that other crap.

And then there's Ned Beatty, who's usually real cool. But when he's onscreen, I have to look away out of embarassment for him. My forehead still hurts from having to slap it so much while I was watching those things.

I know that people love this movie, but I just don't get it. I didn't get it when I was a kid, and I don't get it now.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-27-2006, 09:41 PM:

What I don't understand about the Chrissy Reeves Superman movies is why he would fall for a woman who smokes. Is he a 'tard or something? He should have left her dead and said "Dat's wut u git, bitch! Word."

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-28-2006, 01:53 AM:

For anyone interested, here are links to the "Superman Returns" IMAX 15/70 and Digital Cinema playdates.

There's a couple new IMAX theaters and quite a few new D-Cinema installs (in places like Oregon, Utah, Minnesota, etc.).

[ 06-28-2006, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: Michael Coate ]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-28-2006, 09:43 AM:

Overall, I liked it a lot. I also liked the original Richard Donner version, and I agree with Mike on Otis. Lex kept him around for the same reason he kept the ditsy lady around in this one. They were people he could talk down to.

Was it me, or were there video artifacts in the opening credits when they each first appeared on the screen? If so, that's pretty lame. If not, I'll chalk it up to tired eyes on my part.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-28-2006, 01:36 PM:

I, too, noticed artifacts. The outline of the hollow text does that warble-flickering thing as the words zoom in (at least in the DMR version they do ... haven't looked at a 35mm yet.)

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-28-2006, 02:05 PM:

I've seen it on both DLP and 35mm, and the credits artifacting is present on both. There are a few other cases of digital artifacting throughout the movie, but I noticed them more on 35mm than on DLP.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-28-2006, 02:25 PM:

Ok, good, it wasn't me. Well, how stupid is that? Can't they render them in something ridiculous like 16 K resolution or something to make sure that doesn't happen? Either that or replicate the method they used over 15 years ago.

Normally I wouldn't really care about how the credits look, but the opening credits are to Superman what the opening crawl is to Star Wars. To screw them up like that is way too lame for words.

[thumbsdown]

Maybe I'm over reacting. Ok, rant off.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 06-28-2006, 03:18 PM:

Saw this last night at the Century 16 on Shoreline in Mountain View, auditorium #6. The 35mm print I saw appeared to be printed on Kodak Vision Premiere. [thumbsup]

Well, I was going to come in here and mention the opening credits, but others beat me to it. Suffice to say, playing "spot the jaggies" is very easy with this movie. I defy anyone to watch that opening credit sequence and then claim with a straight face that 2K resolution is good enough for the big screen.

This movie feels like a remake of the '78 version. A bad remake. Many little things here and there are cribbed from the original: bits of dialogue, music, various shots (like the final shot of Superman in orbit). Not to mention Luthor's plan is recycled from the first two movies. All that would be okay, except that the cribbed parts feel out of place, especially the dialogue. It seems as though almost no attempt was made to fit them in. And why didn't they simply hire John Williams to write the score? He is still alive and working -- surely no one could have done a better job than him.

The casting is pretty good, although I still have a problem with the actors playing Superman and Lois. Despite turning in good performances, they are just plain too young to be playing these parts. They look younger than the actors in the '78 film, yet this is supposed to be a sequel.

The pacing is very slow. The movie spends too much time on some things, such as Superman being in the hospital, but not nearly enough on others, such as his trip to Krypton. What about those rumored shots of him standing on the remains of his homeworld? I would have loved to have seen that. Supposedly they were cut for reasons of time. Unless there was something seriously wrong with those scenes, it sounds like they should have been one of the last things to get cut, while other scenes could have been easily trimmed with no ill effects. Where have all the good editors gone?

The digital cinematography is actually pretty good. On the final print it looks far better than it did in the murky trailers. It's much better than the Star Wars or Spy Kids movies. At times it is hard to tell the difference between this and a movie shot in Super-35 and passed through a 2K digital intermediate. I'm sure Panavision's full-frame sensor really helps. However there are times, such as scenes in Perry White's office and other dimly lit indoor sets, where the flesh tones still have that unnatural orange color we've seen in other digitally acquired movies. And, as always, I must again repeat that 2K is not a goal to be aiming for. 4K is where digital cinema technology should end up. The opening credits are not the only place you can play "spot the jaggies".

In the end, I came away disappointed. Most of the good action had been given away by the trailers, the epic feeling from the '78 version is gone, and it was flat-out boring at times. My first thought once the credits began to roll was, "they spent $250 million on that?"

[ 06-28-2006, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Aaron Haney ]

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-28-2006, 06:49 PM:

IMAX 3-D version seen at 11:45 am at AMC Columbus Easton 30. A very good crowd for such an early screening.

Well, its a good first act. We have a boy with questionable powers, Lex Luthor on an island (bound to be saved by someone), and a love triangle with Lois. I'm sure we'll see more in future editions.

Superman is smaller clone of C. Reeves. I enjoyed his performance. I thought Lois Lane looked too young and lacked strength. The child is the most interesting character...there is much to be learned about him. Kevin Spacey is excellent, and I would like to have seen more of him. Parker Posey looks good and seems to be hiding something. She knows more than she lets on.

If Superman is fast enough to turn back time in Superman I, why did it take him 5 years to get to Krypton and back? Couldn't he turn back time there to see where he came from? (Best not to get too deep into that one.)

I enjoyed it, I think it will make a good bit of money, and I'm sure it will be the next film on the road to sequel-ville.

Rating -- First 2/3 of film - A-, Last 1/3 - C.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 06-28-2006, 08:07 PM:

How does Superman shave? I noticed a 5:00 shadow on his upper lip a couple times.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-28-2006, 08:10 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
I know that people love this movie, but I just don't get it. I didn't get it when I was a kid, and I don't get it now.

Perhaps you "don't get it" because you're not old enough to have seen "Superman" in a theater in its 1978/79 first-run showings.

quote: Mike Schindler
I don't see anything intelligent or clever about Superman spinning around the planet in order to go back in time. It's actually the opposite of those things. For one thing, it's not intelligent, because it makes no goddamn sense. I'm willing to believe a man can fly, but spinning backwards around the planet to go back in time?

Well, I wasn't implying that the spinning the planet to go back in time thing was the lone example of intelligent or clever writing. (Don't blame me if the writers couldn't think of something better like having Superman hop into a Delorean to do his time traveling!) But I do think on the whole the movie (the first one) was well written. And I don't think turning the earth back in time is any sillier than imprisoning people inside a flying mirror!

If you have no trouble suspending your disbelief for comic book and fantasy elements such as a man flying or deflecting bullets or kicking a football hundreds of yards, I don't see why traveling through time should be any more difficult to accept. (Do you have issues with "Star Wars" having sound in space or "Star Trek" spaceships slingshotting around the sun to travel back in time...and to save whales, no less?)

This discussion reminds me of a review I read of "Cars" where the critic disliked the movie because they could not accept the premise of talking automobiles. Come on! Animation, historically, has had as its central conceit animals and inanimate objects talking. Kinda like someone seeing a musical then complaining about characters bursting into song for no reason. All genres have their conventions; you just have to "go with them"...or not bother watching at all.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-28-2006, 10:00 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
How does Superman shave?

With a very, very, very, very, very, very sharp razor?

Actually, if I remember from the old comic book days (and from a quick trip around Google), he uses his heat vision reflected off of a shiny piece of metal.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-28-2006, 10:02 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
If you have no trouble suspending your disbelief for comic book and fantasy elements such as a man flying or deflecting bullets or kicking a football hundreds of yards, I don't see why traveling through time should be any more difficult to accept. (Do you have issues with "Star Wars" having sound in space or "Star Trek" spaceships slingshotting around the sun to travel back in time...and to save whales, no less?)

Right, if you want believeability, watch a documentary... although many of them are pretty unbelievable these days.

quote: Michael Coate
Kinda like someone seeing a musical then complaining about characters bursting into song for no reason.

I read in a trivia book about a theatre owner in China or somewhere who was trying to squeeze in more shows of "The Sound Of Music." The movie was too long, so....he cut out all the songs.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 06-28-2006, 11:03 PM:

Didn't Superman and Lois 'do it' when he LOST his powers in the second movie? Thus it should be that the kid shouldn't have his powers?

hmmm

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-28-2006, 11:58 PM:

I had trouble with that one as well Allison, but I figured it out.

Kent impregnated Lois when he was turned human, but when he reactivated the beam outside of the chamber to alter the physiology of the other three kryptonions, the newly created embryonic child of kal-el was originally human, but was reversed to kryptonian in the beam. It would only effect kryptonians, and would reverse whatever state they were in at the time.

That's all I could come up with, so I am good with it.

But what about the fortress of solitude... didn't superman sink it at the end of superman 2?

Ciao

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 06-29-2006, 01:56 AM:

what a great show! Superman has never been my all time favorite but this was very good indeed.

It moved well , it had a good balance of romance suspence action sprinkled with some slight comic moments. Effects were sensational.

Kevin Spacey was very good in his role .(loved his boat)

I also received a quality print with good focus and sound in DTS was superb.

It got a 4 out of 5 from me.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-29-2006, 04:01 AM:

My wife and a I walked out of what felt like an expericienc, not a amovie. She is now slutting for Brrandan Rougth,,k, fine by me1

I cannot type today or tonightg..... the midnight medcs dkeeep me frokm making any asexnece of whaT IS GOING ABOIUGT AROUDN ME!@! hahahahahaahah

greag movie

Ciao

EDIT: Just to make sure everyone is aware, I have no recollection of ever making this post. Sleep walking is a terrible thing, so is sleep typing. Holy crap I need to watch those meds! [Eek!]

[ 06-29-2006, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Dave Williams ]

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-29-2006, 11:26 AM:

quote: Michael Coate
Perhaps you "don't get it" because you're not old enough to have seen "Superman" in a theater in its 1978/79 first-run showings.

It's interesting that you should bring that up, because I was just discussing this idea with a group of friends on the ride home from SUPERMAN RETURNS. This weekend is the tenth anniversary of INDEPENDENCE DAY. Seeing it as a 16 year-old kid up on the big screen, it rocked my world. But you look at it now, and some of the bling has tarnished. What we're left with is somewhat flimsy. That being said, it still holds a special place in my heart, and I'll be showing it to my Tuesday Night Movie Club this week. [Cool]

I think that turning the earth back in time is way sillier than people imprisoned in a flying mirror, because it's established that Kryptonians have technology which far exceeds our own. Turning back time on the earth defies even the internal logic of the film. And what does it say about a movie when turning back time on the earth can be debated as not the silliest element?

You bring up an interesting point about Deloreans and sun slingshots. I have no problem with time travel's use in those movies. BACK TO THE FUTURE is a comedy. The Delorean was chosen because it was funny. The ridiculous nature of this particular plot device was even questioned by Marty himself. Doc answers him with a joke, as if to say, "Just go with it."

With STAR TREK IV, the idea of slingshooting around the sun was really cool, because it had been established in an earlier episode. So not only does this build on pre-existing continuity, it also eliminates unwanted exposition. Additionally, as I understand it, the real-world theory is that time travel is possible when a certain speed is reached. So it seems that STAR TREK IV's time travel explanation is one of the more scientifically accurate.

Time travel works in these movies because it is explained and used as a plot device to set the story in motion. But with SUPERMAN, it is a text book example of Deus ex machina. If there had been a scene earlier in the film where Superman goes up to the Fortress of Solitude and Jor-El was like, "Dude, if you ever need to turn back time to save some girl, just spin around the world really fast. You'll be dizzy, but hey," then I'd be more accepting of it. It would be clunky, but at least there'd be some sort of rationale. As it stands, there is absolutely no indication that Superman has this trick up his sleeve. It's like some of the bad Sherlock Holmes stories where they don't give the reader a key piece of evidence to solve the crime. It's not fair. And that's why it doesn't work.

And just for the record, I have a huge problem with movies like STAR WARS which use sound in space. But that's an artistic choice, and the entire film doesn't hinge on that element.

So to address Mike B.'s comment, which I totally agree with, I'm not looking for believeability in movies. I just want them to play by their own rules.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 06-29-2006, 11:31 AM:

I'm not sure what I thought about Superman. [Confused]

Here are a few impressions.

Superman hovers a lot. The flying was much more dynamic in previous versions.

Does he have the beginnings of a fat roll around his middle? It's like he as a 10-speed spare tire. He must have gotten less exercise traveling to Kripton.

His mom seems to have overlooked the fact that he seems to have regressed 10-years in his travels.

I'd love it if they had done Superman in a world where physics actually existed. :Spoiler: I mean really, lowering a 777 by it's nose cone?!!! those things are made of fiberglass.

I loved that they used Marlon Brando, but it was a thin metallic Marlon Brando. Where was the Gravitas?

Loved Lex Luther's boat, but that boat designer will never make it. Too much wasted space. You could have fit two decks and 10 cabins in his living room. Also did Lex Luther's living room have some sort of dynamic stabilizer? It was a lot less choppy down below than when that crewman/Captain walked down there.

Wasn't he worried about the U.S. lobbing a couple of nuclear weapons on to his new "continent?" That would sure screw up real estate prices.

But everybody was gorgeous and in the end everything was won for Truth, Justice and the American Way. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-29-2006, 12:14 PM:

How did this film look being "filmed" in HD? Star Wars was hard to judge because almost everything except the actors was CGI. I assume this had more normal sets and backgrounds.

I hope to see it this weekend (maybe I'll get to see it in IMAX).

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-29-2006, 12:31 PM:

In DLP, it looked very nice. On 35mm and Imax, it looked less nice.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 06-29-2006, 04:15 PM:

Another question:

Didn't Superman 'erase' Lois's mind with a kiss at the end of Superman 2, thus she should not even know that they she had "one night with Superman", let alone a kid.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-29-2006, 04:44 PM:

Allison,
In the current issue of In Focus, the writers say that SUPERMAN RETURNS is more of a sequel to their memories of the first two films than the films themselves. Luckily, they forgot about numerous elements, including the amnesia kiss. [beer]

EDIT: By the way, I wanna see the movie where Superman sleeps with Lois Lane without revealing his secret identity. How does he stoop to that level of dishonesty? Sounds like some great character stuff to me.

[ 06-29-2006, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Mike Schindler ]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-29-2006, 08:50 PM:

I said this before, I say it again:

"Superman" is an illegal alien, literally. No wonder so many people from other countries feel they can make their way across the borders without proper paperwork if they even make movies which celebrate illegal immigration.

This has to stop. You should not support movies which undermine the integrity of the American borders.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-29-2006, 08:59 PM:

The Lois Lane in this movie looks about 17 or 18 years old. How can she have a 5 year old kid and a good job at a newspaper? Also when most women have kids, it really takes its toll physically on their looks. They usually start getting bigger as well. I have a hard time putting my disbelief aside in this one. Superman himself looks about 19.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-29-2006, 10:19 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
The Lois Lane in this movie looks about 17 or 18 years old. How can she have a 5 year old kid and a good job at a newspaper?

Maybe she's from Lawton, OK. A significant number of girls around here squirt out their 2nd kid before graduation. Uh...maybe I should paraphrase that "graduation" thing. Ah: average age of someone graduating from high school. Didn't want to assume the graduation thing actually happened. Hmm. There's still that good job at a big city newspaper thing. "Hopped up on meth in a trailer house" sounds a bit closer to home. But some people are really motivated. Maybe she's a child prodigy who finished school early and also wanted to be a child mother prodigy -or whatever that would be called.
[Confused]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-29-2006, 10:52 PM:

So this movie is a sequel to Superman 2? Apparently parts 3 and 4 never happened otherwise Soopy would have noticed Lois' pregnancy. What is the trend with all of the girly boys in super hero movies lately? In Batman Begins, the Scarecrow guy was CLEARLY wearing lipstick and I think eyeshadow throughout the movie.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 06-29-2006, 10:54 PM:

I could tell that Brandon Routh was not really flying. It totally ruined the movie for me. They should have hired an actor that can actually fly.

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 06-29-2006, 10:56 PM:

I saw the movie today, which was being shown in Auditorium #10 & utilizing Dolby Digital on a 60ft screen. I thought it was a really good movie. It was worth the 2 hours, 34 minutes.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-30-2006, 04:26 AM:

Yeah, but then according to your profile, you are into Star Trek, so your opinion doesn't count.

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 06-30-2006, 09:45 AM:

Sure, I maybe into Star Trek, but, I like Superman and Horror Films as well. So, my opinion is still valid. [Big Grin]

So, I don't understand how it can't count. [Confused]

Of course, I know that I didn't specifiy it in my profile. [Smile]

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 06-30-2006, 03:04 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
How did this film look being "filmed" in HD? Star Wars was hard to judge because almost everything except the actors was CGI. I assume this had more normal sets and backgrounds.

Lyle, I talked about the cinematography in my review on page 2. In my opinion, it's still not as good as 35mm, but better than the work that was done on Star Wars or Spy Kids.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 06-30-2006, 03:26 PM:

In defense of Robert Rodriguez "filming" in HD, he does it so he can stick it to the studios and make movies in his garage in Austin TX. I have no similar defense for George Lucas. He shouldn't have been experimenting with HD on a series like Star Wars. I think that 80% of films could be produced in HD, like every Adam Sandler film. It will make those 20% filmed in film with good cinematographer's look that much better.

Frankly a film like Superman doesn't matter because all of the special effects need to be done in the digital medium anyway. And yes Superman didn't seem to fly so much as hover. I think Smallville worked because the producers said "It's Superman but no flying and no tights."

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-30-2006, 04:33 PM:

quote: Ian Price
I think Smallville worked

There's your first mistake. [Big Grin]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-30-2006, 05:52 PM:

quote: Ian Price
Frankly a film like Superman doesn't matter because all of the special effects need to be done in the digital medium anyway.

But... Star Wars requires the same thing!

Also, wasn't Smallville shot on film? To me it looks like the same guy playing Superman in both the show and this movie.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-01-2006, 07:25 PM:

Today 7/1/2006 11:30AM, Regal Cinema World 8 in Eugene, House #4, some kind of digital sound. Attendance ~15-20. Looked great, sounded great except for a rattling sound coming from or near the right-front speaker whenever it had to pump out a lot of bass.

"Superman Returns" comes with a LOT of baggage, and the first 45 minutes or so of the movie had to deal with that baggage. I found that part pretty dull. I understand they had to do that but still. Then things picked up and the movie got a lot better. Brian Singer does a good job with the material. Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth are ok.

The opening CGI titles looked cheezy to me. Disappointing. Some things are done better the old way.

Although the print was in perfect condition, not even a lab splice, it seemed like the colors were "off" a little. Like people's faces looked pasty sometimes. It almost reminded me of a colorized b/w movie. Maybe that's intentional.

John Williams deserves a nice big fat check from this because his Superman Theme is one of the best movie themes of all time.

I'm feeling generous. 4 out of 5 stars from me. I hope it does well enough to spawn a sequel.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-01-2006, 07:32 PM:

OK, first the technical stuff. The aliasing on the opening titles was pretty bad. Were they trying to make it look like CGI titles would have looked in 1978 if they used them instead of opticals?

As for the overall picture quality of the "film" I thought it was pretty good. I was sitting about 2 1/2 screen heights back. The colors (especially flesh tones) aren't great all the time. The only funky thing I really notices was Lois' hair in the hospital scene when it was up against the window background. Her hair kind of stair stepped oddly.

I saw it in 35mm. Great print, rock steady, in focus presentation. In some ways it looked better than super 35, notably the lack of the usual super 35 graininess.

Now for the movie. I thought it was pretty good. There were many positives. I thought Brandon Routh was good. It was entertaining but it was about 1/2 hour too long. What happened to Bryan Singer? The first two X-men couldn't have been more than 1:40. Overall, I thought it was fun and entertaining. Definitely worth seeing. Probably not worth seeing multiple times.

3 out of 5 stars

Posted by Warren Smyth (Member # 1838) on 07-02-2006, 06:21 AM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
You should not support movies which undermine the integrity of the American borders

I'm really sorry Michael, but superman has completely sold you all out.

He doesn't even admit to the "American Way" any more. If news items are correct, he once fought for truth, justice and well, you know what, but now he fights for truth, justice and "All That Stuff". As you say, he must be a US alien.

The director is reported to have said that the change of motto is deliberate. It seems that the film has to be acceptable to foreign markets and that Superman is a global citizen now.

It seems that the man of steel has been gagged for the sake of overseas profit. Actually, the TV news item I saw said a lot more, but I don't wish to offend and afterall, politics is banned from the forum. [Wink]

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 07-02-2006, 08:12 AM:

After seeing this, I truly despise the HD thing. To me, only close-ups were sharp (although not as sharp as they would have been had they been shot on film) whereas many group shots of people are just plain soft - out of focus.

Now before the screening, the 'Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest' trailer played, and it was RAZOR sharp from corner to corner, so the projection was fine. [thumbsup]

Apparently, 1080 lines completely fails to provide adequate sharpness on a movie screen. [Mad]

$260 million dollars and they shoot the thing with cameras that max out at 1080 lines? Any reason for this...really? They managed to shoot 'Pirates' and 'Batman Begins' and 'Spiderman 2' on film and they all look superb...so what's the problem?

Does anyone else find this movie just not sharp enough? Not only lacking in sharpness, but color and contrast as well? Again, the 'Pirates' trailer simply embarrased it in all areas of quality. Kicked the shit out of it. Ridiculed it and called it obscene names.

To summarise, I absolutely HATED the look of this film to the point that I couldn't enjoy it. Ironically, the 1978 version is probably sharper!

HD = [bs]

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 07-02-2006, 06:16 PM:

Sems like you lot don't know a good film when it hits you in the face! Being in the UK I'll have to wait we get it (hopefuly not scratched USA prints) but I shall enjoy/hate it for what it is. Comparissons with reeve are now irrelevant with Smallville (wich is the audience the studio is aiming for). Who cares as long as it gets bums on seats and sells the popcorn!

Posted by Fred Georges (Member # 505) on 07-02-2006, 10:55 PM:

Slow & Lumbering. Could have been a decent 90 minute movie but as delivered it had me squirming in my seat & checking my watch. Too Bad. [sleep]

Posted by Jason Winn (Member # 3568) on 07-03-2006, 02:23 AM:

I've never really been a fan of Superman. I never read the comics. I've seen the original movies, but I don't really care much for them. I always thought they were kinda cheesy. But, I actually liked this one. It was a fun and exciting movie. It had a great cast. Kevin Spacey was awesome as Lex Luthor. At least it had a better ending than the original 1978 version. I mean, come on, Superman spins around the world and turns back time?! What the hell is that? Even to this day, I still say that is the worst ending of any movie ever made. It's like the writers ran out of ideas, so they just pulled that out of their ass. Superman Returns owns that crappy 1978 version.

Oh, I got a question. That kid is supposed to be Superman's son, right? Well, if it's his son, how come Superman never payed any child support? I mean, what the hell? Superman knocks up Lois, then disappears for 5 years, and never pays a penny of child support? Man, that ain't right! If that was me, the govenment would be all over my ass. How come Superman can get away with not paying child support? What makes him so special? That's messed up.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-03-2006, 09:22 AM:

I'm not a fan either. This one was too long, too slow, and did nothing with what it had to work with. What a waste on all levels.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-03-2006, 10:07 AM:

quote: David Stambaugh
John Williams deserves a nice big fat check from this because his Superman Theme is one of the best movie themes of all time.

I agree. He also deserves a big fat "I'm sorry" for the horrible chop job the editor of SUPERMAN RETURNS did on his music. The original themes from SUPERMAN are awesome, but I cringe at certain parts of it in this movie, in particular, "Can You Read My Mind" in the end credits.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 07-03-2006, 11:24 AM:

On the whole 'turning the Earth back in time' thing from the 78 version, I think there's a reasonable 'movie' explanation for that. In Superman Returns it is mentioned by a news anchor that it is believed Superman is traveling at near the speed of light. If Superman is indeed capable of flying faster than the speed of light then-at least in theory-he can time travel. In the 78 version we didn't see him turn the Earth around but rather saw the Earth spinning backwards because HE was going back in time.

*shrugs* That's my read on it.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-03-2006, 12:43 PM:

BTW, did anybody catch in the news report when they said something about violence "from _____ (forgot the first place) to Gotham"?

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 07-04-2006, 03:30 AM:

Yes I noticed that too, Lyle... pretty cute [Razz]

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-04-2006, 04:45 PM:

CINEMA: Century 20 at Jordan Creek, West Des Moines, IA
AUDITORIUM: 9
PRESENTATION: 35mm/Dolby Digital/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]

RATING: Three and one half stars (out of four)

WARNING: Goodnight, Spoilers

"Superman Returns" gets five screens, but not the big ones. Auditoriums 10 and 11 are devoted to "The Devil Wears Prada". Bummer.

THE PLOT: A being from another planet returns to Earth after discovering there's no place like your adopted home when the home you were born in was trashed by some wacky bastards. I'm originally from Portland, so I can relate.

Anyway, he's back for truth, justice, and an American love triangle. But his archrival broke into his Fortress of Solitude and stole some stuff, so he needs to take care of that too.

I would have changed exactly one thing...I would have put Lex and Kitty's last scene after the credits. Short of that, it was exactly what it should have been. GREAT movie.

Wife #1 caught the "Gotham" thing.

SWEET train set.

[ 07-04-2006, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Sam Graham ]

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-04-2006, 05:02 PM:

Ha ha, we had Superman in ALL our big auditoriums, but we had to swap Prada into one of them after that first night. Besides, our IMAX Superman is far surpassing our four 35mm prints.

I, too, think the final Lex/Kitty bit would have worked after the credits. But its placement breaks up the long, boring hospital stuff, which would have been way too tedious without the comic relief. It's the ONLY thing between Lois & Jason's visit, and Nurse-Discovering-Empty-Bed, two scenes that would have been difficult to put back to back.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-04-2006, 05:28 PM:

Watched this one on Sunday morning with my son. In my #2 auditorium with Dolby Digital sound and stadium seating! [beer]

Great film. With today's movies being so sucky - this one did not suck. That's a good thing.

I got one I bet no one noticed:

When the model train set is being destroyed - I noticed a sign that fell over that read : WELCOME TO SMALLVILLE. I thought that was funny on several different levels. [Smile]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-04-2006, 08:22 PM:

Forgot to mention one nice touch was Noel Neill's (the 1950's TV Lois Lane) cameo as the dying heiress. Didn't even notice Jack Larson's (the 1950's TV Jimmy Olsen) cameo as the bartender until reading about it afterwards.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-05-2006, 01:05 PM:

Finally got a chance to see this yesterday.

I liked it a lot. I guess I'm the only one here who wasn't bothered by the opening credits. I liked the background shots during the credits as well.

Story - pretty good, I like it when a movie doesn't telegraph the entire ending before it happens. I knew he'd do something about the "new continent" but didn't know what. And I like the way things are left pretty ambigious about Lois & Clark -- Supe does say "Goodbye, Lois" but still...

Questions I had: Why didn't the kid open the door when Lois asked him to? Why didn't Lex's kryptonite cylinder bother the kid? And, is Richard going to be back in the next sequel or did he drop Lois and the kid off for good?

I guess the main part I didn't like was Superman being "critical" in a hospital. He's Superman, forcripesake, he's not supposed to need medical care. But I liked that he disappeared from the hospital....would have been better if there'd been a huge hole in the ceiling.

I think the whole "truth, justice and all that stuff" brouhaha is tremendously overblown. Even my mother-in-law, who's not even a Supe fan, said she heard the movie was "anti-American." The screenwriters should have known that line would cause trouble.

I agree with previous comments about the colors. Superman's costume seems dull in a lot of shots, especially the cape. But there are some scenes of cityscapes that are great. And I agree the SFX were awesome. I thought Lois should have at least had a broken arm from being tossed around in the plane though.

Overall, 3.5 out of 5 stars for me.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-05-2006, 01:21 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I guess the main part I didn't like was Superman being "critical" in a hospital. He's Superman, forcripesake, he's not supposed to need medical care.

I liked this part quite a bit. One of the major problems with most portrayals of Superman is that he's way too invincible. I know many people disagree, but I like my Superman to have some weakness. It works better dramatically.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-05-2006, 02:14 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Questions I had: Why didn't the kid open the door when Lois asked him to? Why didn't Lex's kryptonite cylinder bother the kid? And, is Richard going to be back in the next sequel or did he drop Lois and the kid off for good?

The kid didn't open the door because he can only access his power when he is in a panic, and he wasn't panicking then. The kryptonite didn't bother the kid because he is a human/kryptonian hybrid child. As for richard... eh.. who cares!

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think the whole "truth, justice and all that stuff" brouhaha is tremendously overblown. Even my mother-in-law, who's not even a Supe fan, said she heard the movie was "anti-American." The screenwriters should have known that line would cause trouble.

I think this line shows the callousness that many large newspapers have towards america in general, and how they seem to focus on a worldwide audience that has no patience for America. Remember that superman never said this, it was the newspaper editor.

Ciao

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-05-2006, 04:48 PM:

According to many reports quoting the screenwriters, they purposely omitted "the American way" because they were concerned about an international audience and because they didn't think the phrase meant the same thing today as it did in the 1940s. I doubt this is the reason for the less-than-record-breaking box office in America. But if they didn't like the phrase "the American way" they might have been more wise to ignore it completely rather change the larger slogan. You can't change well-established stuff without upsetting long-time fans.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-12-2006, 12:36 AM:

Ok, my take on this show. After finally watching it.

Pretty good movie. No comparison to the 1978 movie which can now rightly be called a classic action flick. This one is decent. But it is also more than a tad bit derivative. All throughout this movie I had little pangs of "been there, seen that" popping up all over the place. Might be nice for 1 or 2 viewings, but not good for the long haul.

The videography looked okay. It didn't really have an obvious video look -seemed to have a pretty good imitation of the film look. But the image quality still looked soft. The show would have looked a lot sharper had it been photographed in anamorphic 35mm. Naturally it would have been fantastic looking if the trouble had been taken to lens it in 65mm.

But let's get to my real criticism: The Opening Titles. Suckage. And that's the opinion of a qualified, professional, college educated computer graphic artist.

What the hell were these guys thinking? Huh?

The pixellation and aliasing is as bad as anything I've seen shown in a movie theater. Very embarassing.

Shit, this is basic stuff. Even for 480i television! If you're going to do something really detailed you gotta originate it in a much higher standard or you have to add the appropriate amount of blur to keep the flicker and aliasing from happening.

The original movie and its "analog" originated glassy titles looked a hell of a lot better. And there was no pixellated shimmering and aliasing on those things. Digital is NOT always perfect.

With the goal of being a real sequel to the 1978 version, they didn't get the font right on the opening titles.

I'm not really sure what font was used in the 1978 film's opening titles. It seems like a cross of Gill Sans Bold and Frutiger. The new movie uses a font called Gotham. That's a very popular typeface these days. But Batman lived in Gotham City. Superman lived in Metropolis. So even there they kind of missed the mark, even by following comic book terminology.

The thing which drove me up the wall the worst about those opening titles was the frantic, meth-addict-laden fast-foward speed of all the shit flying past way the hell too fast. Usually you want to pass by a huge sized object, such as a planet, fairly slowly to impart the sense of scale. With the speed these titles fly by, the planet of Saturn is the mere size of a fucking soccer ball! Yaarrgh! Suckage! Really, what the fuck!?

The opening title sequence in the 1978 film had nowhere near the level of computer technology and other tools available today. Still, those titles have a superior asthetic appeal to them as compared to the new Superman movie.

Basically a lot of these computer tools of today has allowed a lot of people to get ridiculously lazy and not do their damned jobs correctly!

Oh, and before anyone tries to retort and say I'm wrong on this -just go back and look at the NOT matching at all perspective. Ack! I might as well be on 'ludes watching those titles. Maybe they might make sense then.

Overall, my criticism serves those guys right for trying to outdo something that was already well done. They should have taken a different path with this movie's opening titles. Here's a hint: the character is called "the man of steel." Hmm. Chrome titles? Perhaps something in diamondplate -like the new "S" logo? Hello? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

quote: Ian Price
In defense of Robert Rodriguez "filming" in HD, he does it so he can stick it to the studios and make movies in his garage in Austin TX.

Yet the video cameras he is using are still made by Panavision. Also, let it be known you don't have to be in Los Angeles or New York to rent a Panavision film camera. Panavision has offices in Texas. Robert Rodriquez just needs to drive a little ways up I-35 to Dallas and get a film camera. Dammit!

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-12-2006, 12:41 AM:

Screening: 6:45pm on July 11, 2006.
Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons. Sandy, Utah.
IMAX Presentation.

Most annoying thing: The picture was "jittering" horizontally throughout the film. I don't know much about IMAX projectors but this one seems to need a tune up (after less than a year).

Second most annoying thing: The way they adapted John Williams' music. I mean, you anticipate certain melodies to be a certain way because you've heard them that way a million times since 1978... and then some knucklehead messes it up, repeats things in the wrong order, whatever. Who's bold enough to say they can write John Williams' music better than John Williams? The credits were surprisingly short, followed by additional IMAX-only credits. Since I haven't seen the non-IMAX version, I'm wondering if there are more credits (which would give the credits the same running time) or if the music in the 35mm/DLP version lacks the annoying repetition.

Other than that, you folks have covered this movie pretty well. Not a great movie but not as horrible as I expected either. And the 3-D was a less-than-satisfying novelty. They needed more 3-D material or just forget about doing it at all. Of course, I was curious enough to spend more money than I would on a 2-D presentation, so their trick worked!

When I left the theatre I couldn't help noticing the neon "P" was out on the sign above the entrance. I went back and asked someone at the box office if they did it on purpose just to be cute. I mean, I just watched Superman Returns at the "Mega Lex" theatre!

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-12-2006, 06:32 AM:

Jittering, eh? Could possibly be their clearances needing to be checked.

I haven't yet seen the 35mm version of the credits, but I would guess they're about 5-6 minutes long. The 1:45 running time on the IMAX credits was, it appears, a last minute change. The times that came with the print for setting the polarizer synch points indicated credits that were 5-6 minutes. The credits are doubled up on-screen, and yes they fly by and are over before half the people have left the auditorium.

Yes, the trick works. Even at $13.50 a ticket, we were piling them in every show ... until that pirate movie came and spoiled everything. I was astonished at the drop off we had, but our IMAX attendance is still quite remarkable.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-12-2006, 06:39 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
But the image quality still looked soft

One funny thing is that on Ebert and Roeper, they praised the cinematography, calling it "beautiful." And this is the same Ebert that has written anti-digital articles. I wonder if they knew it was shot in HDTV.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-15-2006, 10:30 PM:

If Ebert and Roeper called the cinematography beautiful, I have doubts they saw it in IMAX or even a 35mm film-based auditorium.

I checked out the 3:00pm show of Superman Returns today at the Cinemark IMAX theater in Colorado Springs. I'm up in Colorado because my Grandmother had a scary medical episode. A couple other relatives and I rushed up here Thursday. Thankfully it wasn't a stroke, just something minor. Anyway, I figured I'd check out that version of the show while here.

Again, the dramatic content of the movie itself is pretty decent. It rates three stars out of four, but you have some "been there, done that" feelings popping up.

I watched this version to check out how well this artificial 3D technique done entirely in post production looks. Well, it isn't as bad as I thought it could have been. The concern was that the 3D stuff would look like separate layers of really flat looking objects. The technicians obviously did quite a bit more work to get a more gradual quality to the depth. Still, the depth effect wasn't nearly as clear as it should have been to be fully convincing. The edges of some foreground objects were blurry. And that problem worked to increase the blurry effect of an already noticeably blurry movie when viewers weren't signaled to put on their glasses.

By comparison, the IMAX 3D trailer of Happy Feet on the front of the show looked more natural. I suspect that movie was made with 3D specifically in mind.

Given that Star Wars was shot on 35mm film in 'scope, and had its original visual effects shot in VistaVision, I'm hoping George Lucas is working with at least a 4K level scan on his effort to make a 3D version of Star Wars for its 30th anniversary. If he does that, the results may look quite a bit better than the 3D I saw with Superman Returns.

Viewing this show in IMAX also bolstered my opinion about the limits of shooting major feature projects on video. I didn't see pixels the size of floor tiles in this. However, the pixel grid did make itself noticeably visible in a few areas, such as the rendering of those lighted control panel crystals in the Fortress of Solitude growing up at Lex Luthor. Of course, the pixellation in the opening titles was even more noticeable. And the way too fast nature of planets flipping by like some sort of acid trip did not work well on this big a screen. A lot of that stuff would just whip by like a fast blur or something.

Overall, the softness I noticed in 35mm was even more exaggerated in IMAX. And the imagery was very wanting in terms of detail.

When you're used to watching movies natively photographed in IMAX, you can concentrate on certain areas of the huge screen and see lots of details well in focus. There were lots of things in this show that seemed way out of focus.

For instance, when Lex Luthor is telling Kitty about how selfish Gods are aboard that ship, there's lots of objects on the set you should be able to fully "read". The numbers on the pool table balls are blurred out, even though they're big enough on screen for the numbers to be legible. In another scene Lex opens a newspaper whose front page covers much of the frame. All the type on it is blurred. If that shot had been done on film and scanned at 4K I'll bet that type would have been sharper and far more legible.

I think the shots that looked best on this IMAX version where low depth of field scenes between actors. But even on lots of low depth of field shots the areas within the focal plane were just not as sharp as they should be. Hairs, skin pores and other stuff you would normally see really sharp even on normal 35mm 'scope movies just seemed not well defined here.

This movie probably looks really good on a small to medium sized screen equipped for digital cinema. Maybe in that kind of venue one may not see all the pixellation on the opening titles and other limitations of HD videography calling attention to itself.

With all the drive for people to convert all parts of movie making to digital form, I'm hoping other areas in computer parts manufacturing can push improvements that will translate over to these new kinds of cameras Panavision and Arri are making. Their video cameras need a lot more native pixels to capture the level of detail I'm used to seeing in feature films.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-22-2006, 02:45 AM:

If Lois Lane took Superman to Superman Returns at an IMAX theater in 3D, would she at least realize he is Clark Kent when he puts the 3D glasses on?

Also, I agree with those who despised the logic in the rotating the earth backwards scene in Superman. I was less than 10 when I saw it and even back then, I was disgusted by the stupidity of that scene. Just had to get that off my chest. At least in BAck to the Future, you can suspend reality because the time travel Delorean is like a black box while rotating the earth is a known reality where anyone above 5 knows rotating the earth has nothign to do with time.

Saw it at a Regal IMAX Mall of Georgia in Atlanta.
With the letterboxing, the size can't be more than your biggest regular multiplex screen. I knw Michael Mann loves HD for the night scenes, but for me , I actually find HD work horrible in night scenes in motion pictures. It has a very videoish feel. But the HD work overall did not bother me. Do you think studios will get a clue that big and good presentation does matter? Superman is kicking some major ass in the IMAX revenues compared to its 35MM revenues. Imagine if they gave 70MM a good buzzword marketing term.

Brandon Routh was a better Superman than I expected. I liked SInger's direction even if some scenes at the end dragged on. But I despised how Singer decided to add more illogical concepts. Superman, as it is, makes you summon all the childhood devotion one has to the SUperman character to suspend a lot of disbelief (the glasses on glasses off stupidity; the unlimited superpowers that the guys actually had to come up with kryptonite or Superman would become a really boring character to follow). But does Singer have to include scenes where some of that lack of logic stands out even more? Wouldnt Jimmy Olsen who worships Superman and is Kent's buddy notice that the two were not only missing for 5 years, but when Superman is sick, Kent goes missing again? And even if you think, OK the thought never occurred to him, surely he would consider it when Lane's boyfriend broaches the possiblity and then they both just laugh it off? And what to make of Lane making her boyfriend believe he was the father unless we are expected to think Lane fucked him right after she lost her memory in Superman 2? I never cared too much about a Superman -Lane romance in such a serious way to be able to get into the whole pathos by Superman. I get the loney man vibe that makes him sad, but the pining only for Lane thing as his one great love doesnt interest me.

Another thing that I dont care for is the crystals. I found the crystal concept a good tool to use some 70s art deco props in the first two superman movies. But it was never that important for me to see an entire plot be based upon.

ANyway, despite all that, I still liked the movie. For me, Routh was every bit as good as Christopher Reeve in the role. I thought Reeve may have had more presence in some scenes, but Routh didn't look as stiff as Reeve in others.

The 3D stuff was pretty good except for when SUperman is running throught the fields and the visuals looked like a big jumble to me.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-23-2006, 02:01 AM:

quote: Greg Anderson
Most annoying thing: The picture was "jittering" horizontally throughout the film. I don't know much about IMAX projectors but this one seems to need a tune up (after less than a year).

I saw the IMAX presentation there the day after you, so you definately must have gotten as sick as the rest of us did. I don't think it helped the 3-D presentation at all.

Ciao

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-24-2006, 12:07 AM:

My co-worker, who watched the IMAX presentation with me, took his son to see Superman Returns at a DLP presentation the following week. (Carmike's Wynnsong theatre in the north part of Provo.) According to his report, the sound system was out of balance and there was a mysterious, inconsistent light reflection dancing around the screen during half the show. How can a brand new DLP system be out-of-whack? This system was installed only about a month ago!

This friend of mine lives about two blocks from a 16-screen Cinemark which opened only a couple of years ago. He doesn't like to go there because of too many presentation problems in the past... bad picture, analog sound, you-name-it. He's been burned half the time he goes there. To us, there are a lot of "invisible" theatres in Utah: Places which are very convenient and close but places we never even think about when we decide where to see movies.