Danny Writes

This is the journal entry that I wrote after seeing Superman Returns. It was NOT a good movie. I titled this entry “…Part I,” as I always had intended to go back and write some more on the topic but then I realized that this piece of shit movie really did not deserve even THIS much attention from me. I just can’t believe it was a hit. People ACTUALLY liked it…

********************************************* 

the trouble with superman pt.1

now that i’ve seen ’superman returns’ i have a whole slew of reasons to be pissed off.  much to my surprise, brandon routh was not a terrible superman. wasn’t great, but not terrible.  his clark kent could use some work.  they keep flip flopping on whether or not this movie is intended to be a continuation of superman 2… it is.  they use the same music and titles in the opening credits, there is a picture of glenn ford (jonathan kent from superman: the movie) on the mantle in the kent house.  the title of lois’ pulitzer winning article is still ‘i spent the night with superman’, lex has been to the fortress of solitude before, and if none of that is enough, marlon brando is still jor-el despite being dead. why would you go to that much trouble if you were not trying to tie yourself to the original films? you wouldn’t. my main problem with this film is how badly bryan singer handled the character of superman. he obviously doesn’t understand what superman is all about. superman is in love with lois lane, but he would never be with her unless she fell for clark kent. there are two reasons for this: 1.) any woman would fall for superman, he’s superman for christ’s sake. 2.) superman is a “mask” that allows clark kent to have a normal life. he’s not a real person. clark is.    now…follow me here. i’m gonna be all over the place…

clark gave lois the ‘hypnotic kiss’ at the end of ‘2′ then presumably disappeared. lois moves on with richard white(?) and has a baby (that belongs to superman) here’s the thing: lois is at BEST 26 in this movie. superman has been missing for five years. that means that not only did a 21 year old girl win a pulitzer, but superman knocked up a CHILD. superman wouldn’t have sex with a 21 year old girl. no way.   when she finds out the baby is his she doesn’t get upset about being raped, so she IS aware that she has a sexual history with the man of steel. lois does not know that clark and superman are the same guy. which means that she went out with superman, not clark. i can’t imagine lois giving it up on the first date, so that means that she and superman DATED. it also means that at some point they found themselves ‘back at her place’ where it got a little steamy? he sets her down on the bed? he removes his ’s’ shirt and cape? pulls off his tights and outside underwear? his super-weiner is hanging out? she starts sucking him off while he stands there with his red boots still on, blue tights around his knees? THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN!! superman is not a real guy he is an iconic figure. clark can do any of that stuff, superman cannot. clark can get down with a lady; superman cannot. clark can take a shit; superman cannot. clark can sit in a restaurant and enjoy a meal; superman cannot. superman is a disguise that clark puts on to fight crime. he is not a real guy.

more to come…

***********************************

As you can probably tell, I have issues…

Here’s a picture of the awesomest dude I saw at the Wizard World 2007 Comic-Con in Chicago:

I wrote this rant right after I read an article in Wizard magazine about “Superman Returns.” I had also seen the trailer at this point. Keep in mind that I am a huge Superman fan and what was being done to the man of steel really got me going. I would also like to point out that I have many gay friends and harbor no ill will towards the homosexual community. My use of the word “gay” to describe something that I find “lame” is a result of the time in which I grew up.  My use of the word “queer,” however is in DIRECT referrence to the totally gay lifestyle of the North American homosexual.

********************************* 

look, i still maintain that one CANNOT make a good superman movie without a proper superman.  this movie has no proper superman. this routh kid looks more like jason schwartzman than the man of steel. he looks like a teenager, no bulky muscles or broad chin or any other classicly recognized physically heroic traits…this is not going to be nearly as queer as shumacher’s batman, but pretty queer none the less. listen up hollywood, we comic book geeks like our superheroes to be as close to the comics as possible. i don’t care what your take on the material may be. if you’re gay. fine. be gay. just stop letting it rub off on our superheroes. you didn’t queenify the x-men!! hell, if he promises to de-gay superman i will suck off bryan singer. that’s how much i care…(back to my ranting)… the costume looks rediculous. is that cape TIED on at the neck?? bikini briefs?? ’s’ buckle on the belt?? then you have the whole thing with this film being a continuation of superman 2 but lois has a baby that she doesn’t have in 3 or 4. does that mean the baby is going to die? i certainly hope so.  also, being part 2 and 1/2 and all, why are we retelling the origin? that’s a waste of time. plus…superman gets shot IN THE EYE.  never mind instinct or reflexes… no heat-vision melting of the bullet. it’ll look better if it shatters against his EYEBALL.  gay…. gaygaygaygay  GAY!! there are just so many things wrong with this picture already, and it isn’t even out yet, …and still, i can’t help it. i’m excited to see a new superman movie. fuck you hollywood!! i think i’ll go see it with rizzo so he can suck my weiner in the theatre.