sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Bad Astronomy review of "Superman Returns"

Subject: Re: Bad Astronomy review of "Superman Returns"
From: "KalElFan"
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:56:42 -0400
Newsgroups: sci.astro, rec.arts.sf.movies, rec.arts.sf.superman, rec.arts.movies.current-films, sci.physics
SPOILER Space here (apologies for not putting it the last time

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

B
E
L
O
W

<gbajurnay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:1151680435.412009.264180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>I have NOT seen the movie yet, but my question is this:
>
> 1) Assuming he flew to where Krypton was and he is solar-powered, would
> he have not survived the trip being so far away from our yellow sun?
>
> 2) If he used artificial means to travel (ship or otherwise), would he
> still not have survived the trip?
>
> /back to lurk mode

He used a ship and perhaps it was a suspended animation type of
thing for the travel time both ways.  But they don't explain this at all
he just shows up crashing on the Kent farm again.

Having fun with it aside as I did in the last post, it's not really the
nitpicking aspect of this that matters.  Virtually no one dissects
it like this among the wider audience, but the premise of a movie
does matter a lot.  Even if it's only quasi-subconscious, teenagers
or older get the idea that "okay, he went and left for five years
because of... debris or something, and he found nothing..."  This
immediately sets up a who-the-f$#&-cares scenario, especially
when it comes to the romance element but also the hero status
of the character.  Earth is supposed to be his adoptive planet.
If he cares more about Kryptonian debris than Earth and Lois
Lane (and how many people died that he could have saved while
he was away for 5 years?) the movie is f#$%ed from the get-go
in terms of any chance of achieving strong audience empathy for
the characters or story.

How they can spend $200+ million on a Hollywood movie and allow
its premise/foundation to be that flawed boggles the mind.  For
about a half second it occurred to me that it might be a brilliant
way of deflecting criticism from the casting of the two leads,
because it does work to that extent.  It really wouldn't matter
if [take your casting pick here] were playing the roles with that
kind of premise.  You come out of the movie viewing Routh
and Bosworth more as trooper-pawns just doing their jobs
as best they can given the premise and material and paint-
by-numbers or checklist approach to everything.  I think they
were both the wrong casting decision, but better casting would
not have mattered much and might even have made matters
worse.  James Caviezel was mentioned, and I think might have
made a good Superman, but the Messianic Metaphor Mania
element in Superman Returns would have had people quipping
it was like watching a Passion of the Christ sequel or remake.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>