Just got back from a midnight showing. More thoughts in the morning, but I was simultaneously bummed and impressed that it was more of a soap opera than an action fest. It felt a little too long and definitely dragged in the middle, but I feel like it really hit the heart of what makes Superman work.
My favorite part was definitely the bullet flattening against his eyeball shot.
Yeah, that was my favorite part, too. 
I loved it. Of course, I’m easy to please. One of my friends is very upset that
Jason turned out to be Superman’s son[/spoiler], but I expected it. After all, [spoiler]how can you disappoint four generations of comic fans by letting Lois have a child with another man?
If I have a complaint, it’s that there was too much Superman and not enough Clark (I’ve always liked Clark better, believe it or not), but I understand why. The movie’s not called Clark Kent Returns.
Loved the cameos by Noel Neill and Jack Larson, and it was easy to tell who the real fans in the theater were when the “Addis Ababa, 1978” plaque next to the Kryptonite was shown.
Hmmmm? I’m a comic geek, and I am ashamed to say that this made no mark on me. What’s the significance?
I didn’t care for the super-kid at all
and I didn’t especially care for Bosworth as Lane. Of course, I didn’t much like Margo Kidder either, so there you go. Kate was BETTER than Kidder in my book, but she just didn’t feel like a tough elite reporter to me, I can’t say why. And the kid stared. A lot.
And now Superman’s an absentee father? And Lois gets everything she wants: a stay-at-home stable guy AND Superman’s son. I felt a little sorry for Marsden, having to follow up Superman in her life, but I think Singer was paying him back for not giving him any depth in the X-Men movies.
On the plus side Spacey rocked, Brandon Routh was much better than I feared, and I got a snicker out of Parker Posey, Indy Film Queen, appearing in a Superman movie. She was good too, though.
Also, I’d be interested in hreading “Why The World Doesn’t Need Superman”, becuase it doesn’t sound like a very realistic viewpoint, IMHO.
End the bitch-pick rant.
In the first film–“Are we going to Addis Ababa, Mr. Luthor?” It’s something my friends and I say to each other a lot, and at least three other people in the theater also got a kick out of it.
“Looks like a burnoose.” - Otis
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but will in the next few days. I already assumed the bit about the kid though.
I was especially tickled by (minor spoiler ahoy):
Luthor’s Keyser Soze wig!
Judging by the dates we see on the issues of the Daily Planet, only two days or so elapse between Superman’s return to Metropolis and the end of the movie. Despite this,
Metropolis seems to be completely repaired, including the *Planet * building’s rooftop globe, during Superman’s final flyover. Who could do that work so quickly? The Green Lantern Corps?
That’s a minor nitpick though, because it’s a lovely shot. We really enjoyed the movie, and I actually liked the kid. He reminded me of my little brother when he was younger.
I thought Superman Returns succeeds at being a reverential interpretation of American myth that’s faithful to the source material without being slavishly beholden to it. The film is all about contrasts and parallels. Superman and Luthor. Space and Earth. Silence and noise. Lois and Kitty. The view of Earth from above, and the view of a toy city. Flight, achievable by a demigod, and flight, achievable by man.
The imagery is downright lyrical, and its sheer beauty is something to behold. Although character, plot, and other soft stuff is essential, the CGI is important in any big superhero movie, of course, and despite a few very brief glitches, it’s extremely well-done. More importantly, the cinematographer is a god among men who does some amazing work with lighting that elevates the look well above the average summer blockbuster. In the midst of a subdued world full of soft light and heavy shadows that never succumbs to the temptation to go noir, the brightly colored costume subtlely paints Superman as a beacon of light in a drab world, and does a lot to sell the uniformly enthusiastic response of the world to the news of his return.
There’s no mistaking the Risen Star allegory at play. The film hits you over the head with it, complete with scenes showing Superman backlit by a literal rising sun. They’re so lovely to look at, though, it’s hard to complain. One key aspect of the source material is altered slightly, and although the change is minor, the impact is not. The scene remains visually powerful, even unexpectedly shocking, but it strikes a blow at Superman’s already shaky ideology - and ideology and motivation tend to be some of the weaker aspects of the film. Like so many portrayals of Superman, the film avoids the sticky details. He’s meant to be a beacon of light, hope, and goodness? What does that mean, exactly? Are there tough choices to be made? What does he do specifically to show humans the potential that lies within them, as opposed to feats that only a Kryptonian under a yellow sun is capable of performing? The movie avoids tackling those kinds of issues in favor of showing him act as a superpowered rescue worker. The one major plot development that does involve him making a moral decision winds up tarnishing the patina of The Man of Steel, so maybe it’s for the best that they stuck to safe ethical ground.
If you’re going to interpret Superman as a Christ figure, Brandon Routh is the man for the job. I wouldn’t have thought a franchise could be twice-blessed with alchemical casting for an almost impossible role, but it was. Routh’s Superman is full of grace, in both the physical and spiritual realms. The character will always be handicapped by the need to be perfect, but Routh hits all the right notes to make his Superman appealing and reassuring without being cloying or sanctimonious. The script demands a sense of otherworldliness, and Routh conveys it perfectly. If his performance as Clark Kent is a little too beholden to Christopher Reeve’s, it’s a minor and forgivable offense that occupies minimal screen time.
To have a great hero, one needs a great opponent, and here’s where the film starts to get shaky. Kevin Spacey imbues his Lex Luthor with much-needed menace, and does a wonderful job. A few scenes tie into the campiness of Gene Hackman’s performance, but even those moments are almost always turned around by a reminder that he is a dangerous, vicious man. Unfortunately, what’s missing is a well-reasoned ideological opposition to Superman. He has a motivation, but of those logically available, his primary driving factor is one of the weaker ones. Even then, a lot could have been salvaged had he been provided with a brilliant plot. In fact, what he devises, while horrific, is downright stupid.
Unfortunately, Luthor’s not the only one who would have benefited from some more development. We’re told, repeatedly, that Lois has written a highly regarded article called “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman.” I think we’re meant to believe that she has discussed the topic cogently in that article, and I would have liked to hear her argument. We never learn, even at the highest level, what that article contained.What we are given is that she understandably feels betrayed by Superman’s abrupt departure five years earlier. It’s hard not to interpret what we’re shown as Lois winning awards for an editorial that, at its heart, was about her feelings as a scorned woman. Surely someone as intelligent as she’s supposed to be surely wrote an article that’s more well-reasoned than that, personal feelings aside. I also think a fuller explanation would have added gravitas when she regains her sense of faith later in the film. The movie briefly flirts with the interesting idea that she initially feels the news of Superman’s return is distracting the world from important events, but drops that angle quickly.
Overall, Lois is in an improvement on her previous incarnations. We actually get to see her asking hard-hitting journalist questions and doing smart person research, and she’s no longer personally abrasive. Kate Bosworth still wouldn’t be my choice, but she’s better than I anticipated in all ways except one - she does mommy things, but I never bought that she had any real sense of attachment to the kid. Marsden as Perry White’s nephew Richard is an amazingly sympathetic, smart, mature character. I liked him.
Kitty, Luthor’s moll, is clearly meant to parallel Lois. Unfortunately, her character is so severely underwritten as to be a distraction. We’re given none of her backstory as to how or why she’s with him, and we’re not even provided with a clear sense of how integral she is to Luthor’s plans, or how much he trusts her.
“Moll” may be an antiquated word for what’s supposed to be the modern world, but it fits. Age is rather strange throughout. We’re meant to believe that the action takes place in the mid 1980’s, but Metropolis is pure 1930’s Art Deco … with flat screen monitors and camera phones. I covet the silver lamp on Perry White’s desk. Judging by the flight time and skyline, Smallville is on another continent altogether. As images of mythic Kansas go, it’s lovely. As far as accuracy to actual Kansas in what appears to be the 1940’s, well, we’ll let that slide. Had the entire film been a period piece, some troublesome aspects would have been smoothed over. As it stands, the movie contains some weirdly anachronistic sexism.
Ages of the actors are even more problematic. I’ll buy that Superman doesn’t age like the rest of us, and Lois, while young, is passable. Jimmy Olsen? Ouch. And Martha Kent must have been quite old when she adopted Clark, that’s for sure.
Little stuff. The plan sequence is appropriately harrowing; no wimping out on that one. Lots of nice little touches for the comics geeks, including a nod to the cover of Action Comics #1. Brando’s insertion works, and isn’t intrusive. The new costume’s very good, and even though I’m not a big fan of the fish scales, I do like how they add to the film’s already impressive sense of texture. Some plot holes I’d rather not think about, but not as bad as I expected, although blink and you’ll miss some of the explanations the film does provide.
I saw Superman Returns last night, and the more time I have gotten to think abou it, the better it has become in my mind. I even signed up for this message board just so that I could post somewhere about it, as I casually view some of the posts every once in a while when bored.
I will admit I am not a fanboy of the Superman franchise. In fact, I know very little about it all. However, in a way, not being distracted by comic comparisons has given me the ability to see the movie for what I feel it really was trying to get at.
I am a little dissapointed that nobody has mentioned this so far, so I am going to go right on out there.
[spoiler] This movie has a very, very strong religious subtext, that is ingeniously implemented without being overbearing, and once viewed in this light, can be found to be making some very intelligent and enlightening points about the nature of Christianity.
I am not sure how apparent this was to anybody else, but to me it became blatantly obvious. Not only due to the fact that Superman was referred to as a “savior” a number of times, but because the story directly parallels the story of Jesus, and by viewing Superman Returns in this light, we can view the story of Jesus in a new way as well.
Lex Luther’s motivations and hatred for Superman parallels the Romans hatred for Jesus. Lex makes sense. Superman has access to all the knowledge and information in the universe, just as Jesus was an enlightened being and understood the nature of human life. Superman does not share this information with mankind, but rather, keeps it hidden away at the Fortress of Solitude. This angers Lex, and rightly so.
So just as the Romans utilized Jesus’ weakness, that he indeed was mortal, against him, Lex uses Jesus’ weakness to kryptonite (indicating that he is, too, part man, in that he is mortal) to bring him down. The scene where Lex and his cronies are mercilessly beating Superman when he was helpless, I do believe, was made in a way to remind viewers of the Passion of The Christ. When the scene ends, they leave Superman for dead, just as the Romans left Jesus on the cross.
When Superman is returned to health a little later, he does physically what Jesus did metaphorically. He literally lifts up the burden of sin on mankind, which was destined to doom mankind, and hurls it into outer space, killing himself, and therefore sacrificing himself, in the process.
Following his temporary death, there is a pivotal scene where Lois and their son visit Superman in the hospital. They are the only two allowed in, and both express their undying dedication to Superman. They are the only two deciples.
Next thing we know, Superman has dissapeared, just as Jesus did from his burial site. He is resurrected. In this time, he visits his only two true believers for a brief talk. When he speaks with his son, he has a short monologue about the relationship between a father and a son, the passing down of ideas and abilities, and the son developing the father’s lense for viewing the world as he ages. With all the mentions of “Fathers and Sons”, one cannot help but think of “father, son, holy ghost” comparsions. He then flies up into the heavens, leaving the promise that he is with us always, and implying (through the fact that he has a son) that next time he returns, all will be judged with man having no way of striking him down and avoiding their inevitable fate (I make this conclusion due to the fact that the son was not harmed by the kryptonite).
I would like to add that really, given the fact that Superman is a flawless character, there was no other way to do this movie as well. How interesting can a character without flaws be… unless he is compared to the only other character in history without flaws; Jesus Christ. With this in mind, Singer makes some compelling statements about Christianity, and likewise, a modern day Jesus.
Assuming Jesus is mortal, if born today, no matter how much good he does, he would be treated exactly the same as 2000 years ago. People will still regard him in the same light as back then. People will be facinated, taking pictures with camera phones, reading fluff articles about him, but they will not receive his message. They will see him superficially, rather than what he stands for. They will have expectations of him that he cannot possibly fulfill as a mortal. Jesus only had a few true followers. A modern day Jesus, in this case Superman, only had 2.
Through Superman, we can get a better understanding of what it would be like to have the burden of mankind on your shoulders. There is a scene in the beginning, following Superman’s return, where he is watching TV, horrifyed at the acts of violence and hatred that occurred in his absense. Imagine if Jesus were to come back today; wouldn’t such a scene occur? You leave for 2000 years, and you come back and everything has gone to shit!
Not only this, but there was another powerful scene where Superman takes Lois up into space, and asks her what she hears; Nothing. Then tells her what he hears; Everything. From here, we get a good look at human nature. Superman says something like : “Everyone concluded that they no longer needed a savior, but then I come up here, and hear the screams of thousands begging for one”.
In the end, you have to conclude that Superman is a very ostrasized and lonely character. There is no one that he can truly relate to. People do not understand him nor his motivations, and it is unlikely that they ever will. Again, Jesus parallels this.
-Friedah
Friedah, after reading your post I realized I probably overlooked
the significance of Luthor’s Prometheus speech in favor of his explicit statements about revenge.
If the movie wanted me to believe that Luthor’s opposition to Superman is primarily ideological, I wish it had hit that point just a tad harder. I’m all in favor of subtlety, but with this movie I sometimes found it difficult to separate subtlety from fanwanking.
However, I think the parallels between the movie and the source material fail in a crucial respect:
Jesus articulated an explicit philosophy and code of conduct. Superman provides nothing of the sort. He’s a reporter, but we don’t even see him using the media to spread his message. The movie tells us that his father sent him to Earth to serve as a moral beacon, but we don’t actually see him taking a moral stand greater than helping those in danger, something ordinary humans do all on their own (albeit not as often as they should). His invulnerability weakens even that, because he isn’t putting himself at the same kind of personal physical risk that, say, an ordinary firefighter does.
I’m curious as to what you think of the following departure from Christianity, at least my memories thereof. IANA Christian although I’ve certainly had plenty of exposure to it, so if I’m accidentally twisting things, please, be gentle. It’s unintentional.
“The scene where Lex and his cronies are mercilessly beating Superman when he was helpless, I do believe, was made in a way to remind viewers of the Passion of The Christ. When the scene ends, they leave Superman for dead, just as the Romans left Jesus on the cross.”
Didn’t the crowd turn against Christ, in a way that we don’t see with Superman? I really felt that the story was missing a scene where the citizenry turn against their savior figure, and without that, the beat-down scene lost some of its significance. To have him return to his duty even after being turned against by the ordinary people would have made him more heroic, at least in my eyes.
Just wanted to compliment you for saying everything I wanted to say but much more clearly and concisely than I could have said it.
I found it rather unimpressive in the same way I found X-Men 3 unimpressive; a lot of gee-whiz eye-candy but the plot was weak. A better title might’ve been Superman Retreads for the endless tributing of the earlier films, including a number of lines lifted verbatim. I was expecting Bryan Singer (after his success with The Incredibles) to play around with the superhero genre, mix it up and swirl it around. Instead we got an indigestible meal of clichés and heavy-handed religious imagery.
The bit parts of Noel Neill and Jack Larson were amusing, as was the visual tribute to Action #1, but Luther’s “land” speech? The ditsy girlfriend who has a change of heart? Crystals galore? Yeesh.
One bright spot - the passing reference to “Gotham”. I hope this means a future World’s Finest is a possibility, teaming Superman and Batman. I hope this movie makes enough money to increase the chances, though I couldn’t recommend it to a longtime fan of the character or the earlier films.
I’ll have to wait for an open-spoiler thread (or wait until this thread becomes one) before getting into serious deconstruction.
Bryan Singer had nothing to do with The Incredibles.
Oops, wait a sec! (checking)
Heh, got him mixed up with Brad Bird. How embarrassing. Singer’s work on the first two X-Men movies, though, established him as someone who can work well with the superhero premise, which makes the rather leaden Superman Returns just as disappointing. Of course, anyone who complains that X-Men 3 would have been better if Singer had done it need only look at SR to prove that the man isn’t perfect.
That’s the way I felt about it as well. It relied heavily on the tone and style of the previous movies and didn’t stand very well on it’s own. I had expected it to be more of it’s own movie than I got.
Spacey was good as Lex Luthor, but he just wasn’t evil enough. Partially, that was the writing. He was more evil than Hackmans Luthor, but not by much. Maybe 50/50 evil/goof mix. Just not very threatening.
Routh was okay as Superman/Kent, but he didn’t have much of a chance to do anything. The largest chunk of dialogue was his rooftop encounter with Lois, and that wasn’t much at all.
Parker Posey didn’t need to be there at all. Her moll was another throwback to the earlier movies and her presence served only to water down Luthor.
All told. This was a good, but not great movie. I’d say it was a good summer blockbuster. Lots of explosions and special effects but not a whole lot of depth to it. Certainly not as good as Batman Begins or the two Spider Man films, but it ain’t Daredevil. Hopefully this will serve as a launching pad for more and better Superman stories, or at least something along the lines of the second superman film.
Selkie, I think you make some excellent points in response, and it forced me to think about the whole issue a little more. But first, I would like to point out that I don’t even consider myself a Christian at all, but I picked up on this interesting subtext, nevertheless.
I agree that it would have made more sense, if Singer was going for this parallel 100%, for Clark to use his media connections as an outlet for some preaching. However, this obviously would come off preachy, and since this movie is made for a mass audience, it would take away from the action, and therefore, the balance of the film. After all, it was about 2 1/2 hours long as is.
You also bring up the fact that Superman does not really risk anything when fighting crime, that since he is nearly invinceable, the average firefighter is more courageous. This is true. However, the question then is, how many people with Superman’s abilities would choose to use them in a flawlessly good way? It is this latter fact that makes Superman a demi-god, a Christ-like figure. He has all the knowledge and personal strength of the world, but uses it only when necessary, and for others’ benefit, and is WILLING to sacrifice himself if necessary.
Then you bring up the lack of an angry crowd against him, like Christ faced in his final days. I would argue that we do have this aspect in the movie. Think about the reaction of society when he disappeared for five years? Lois Lane won a Pulitzer for an article “Why The World Doesn’t Need Superman”. Society accepted the idea that they could turn their back on him and forget him.
What do you think?
I seriously doubt this is spoiler material, but I’m playing it safe:
If the film had omitted Jor-El talking about Superman’s purpose on Earth, and possibly modified Perry White’s speech about “Does he still stand for…” I would have found the lack of Superman espousing a coherent philosophy more understandable. Instead, we had several instances of being told that Superman stood for something, without any real indication from Superman himself as to what that something might be. I’m not expecting him to deliver specific commandments, but if he’s supposed to serve as a moral beacon, I need something to go on.
Hmm. Let me think about this. Certainly I find his actions admirable - unlike, say, Zod, he’s not trying to take over the world, but I’m still not sure what he’s doing that’s different, in kind, from a regular rescue worker (defined very broadly). In degree, sure - he has abilities the rest of us don’t. But in kind? What is he really doing that elevates him from any other individual willing to sacrifice him/herself? As Luthor points out
it’s not his willingness to share the scientific information or potentially life-saving technology that’s at his disposal. If he’s deliberately holding that back so as not to interfere with the natural developments here on Earth, I want to hear him say so.
We only have Lois’ implication that anyone the world agreed with her article. Perhaps the awards committe viewed it as a well-written think piece while ultimately rejecting its central premise. The evidence presented was that the masses of people welcomed him back with uniform enthusiasm, “crying out for a savior.” (Are we really supposed to believe that no political leader got a bit twitchy upon hearing the news that a super-powered alien based in America had returned? Oh, right, no reason to be, because Superman doesn’t tread on ambiguous moral or political ground). It’s not as though it was ordinary people who:
delivered him to Luthor while baying for his blood because they viewed him as a threat. No one raised so much as a picket sign demanding that ET go home, or wrote a letter to the editor, or in any way registered dissatisfaction with Superman’s presence. The only people less than thrilled were scorned woman Lois, and revenge-driven Luthor.
I’m starting to get the impression Superman Returns is like Aldous Huxley’s Soma: “Christianity without tears.”
Anyway, the whole point of Clark being a reporter in the first place was that he’d have access to late-breaking news about disasters and crimes and whatnot. This is somewhat undercut by his ability to float in the atmosphere and just listen for trouble. If we assume that he just likes being a reporter, then it would’ve been nice, as other posters have noted, to see him actually report something.
Anyway, regarding the kid…Looks like they’re setting up a possible “Superboy” movie, especially since it’s unclear if the kid flung the piano with strength or the “tactile telekinesis” possess by his comic-book counterpart.
And on a minor note, if this movie is ignoring the events of the third and fourth Reeve movies, they seem to be ignoring the Supergirl movie as well, which is kind of a shame since that concept is reasonably workable (though clumsily done). Maybe they’ll try it again.
Many thanks!
Friedah, something else I meant to discuss earlier:
“Following his temporary death, there is a pivotal scene where Lois and their son visit Superman in the hospital. They are the only two allowed in, and both express their undying dedication to Superman. They are the only two deciples.”
I’m not sure they work as disciples for me. They were the only two allowed in, certainly, but it’s not as though there weren’t throngs of people outside who, given the chance, wouldn’t have packed into that hospital. Perhaps that’s closer to canon than I recall - my memory of the Passion story becomes increasingly hazy post-crucifixion.
Mind you, I’m not saying that SR could have, or should have, carried through the allegory 100%. However, in my mind the cumulative effect of the alterations was to make Superman “more popular than Jesus,” and I’m not sure that’s the most effective way to handle a character who is often roundly criticized for being too perfect. I suppose one could argue that he’s not perfect, as witnessed by his Bambi-inspired actions at the end, but that development felt so jarring and out of character I don’t know what to make of it.
None of this discussion should be taken as indications I didn’t enjoy the movie. In fact, my closest friend has indicated that after listening to me - a notorious Superman hating atheist who has yet to meet a Lois Lane she can support - praise the film has led him to question whether he’s entered Bizarro world.
because his Superman is a dick.
I don’t mean that his Superman is a villain, or an anti-hero, or even that his Metropolis is better off without him; clearly none of that is true. I enjoyed the movie, not merely the special effects but also the character stuff; but, even so, he’s a dick.
Some of his dickery comes through in little things. His mother’s dog comes up with a baseball, wanting to play, and he hurls it a few miles away. Funny! Hope it doesn’t crash into anything! (Okay, he’s Superman; I’ll grant that he can probably throw it any distance and still have it land harmlessly. But he’s still teasingthe dog for no good reason.) He breaks Lois’ picture frame and doesn’t replace it, nor, as far as we can see, own up to it.
Some of it’s bigger. He’s a major abuser of his super-senses – eavesdropping on conversations obviously intended to be private (Lois & Perry in the office with the door closed, Lois & Richard at their house), playing Peeping Tom outside the White/Lane house with his x-ray vision (sure, he doesn’t look through Lois’ clothes, but so what? If you found your ex peeking through your windows, wouldn’t you feel violated whether you were in the shower or talking to your husband?). He doesn’t bother to clean up the airplane on the baseball field–a major undertaking for mortals, but trivial for him). He romances a woman whom he knows to be all-but-married to another man (his flight with Lois around the city). He never bothered to say goodbye to Lois when he left Earth. He leaves the hospital without bothering to say goodbye or thank you to the nurses and doctors who have been caring for him, to the thousands of people, including his mother, outside anxiously awaiting news of his condition). He breaks into Lois & Richard’s house to talk to their sleeping son without permission (and make no mistake, Jason is RICHARD’S son. Kal-El may have supplied the DNA, but RICHARD has been doing the scut work–changing diapers, reading bedtime stories, paying bills, being a daddy.) He leaves his widowed mother alone for FIVE YEARS, not knowing whether he’s alive or dead, and never apologizes when she breaks down in tears and tells him how much she missed him when he was gone. He knocks Lois up and leaves her behind (I don’t care that it was unintentional. He had sex with her and left without ever saying good-bye. If that wasn’t dickery, I don’t know what it was.
But all that’s little stuff. He ABANDONED HIS MISSION.
As I recall it, movie Jor-El sends him to Earth (as opposed to away from Krypton) for with a specific purpose. As Lara pointed out, there were endless other planets, many more advanced, he might have gone to; Jor-El sent him to Earth because he believed humanity needed him.
Now one may argue that Clark isn’t necessarily obligated to follow his father’s plans for him. I would agree that he isn’t; he can choose his own life path. But he took on that vocation as an adult, voluntarily; he gave it up once (in S-II) and then resumed it when it was demonstrated to him that Earth needed a Superman. If the second movie is still in continuity, then he left Earth within a couple of months of verbally promising the president specifically (and the world in general) that he was sticking around–that he was committed to being the world’s hero.
Great big dick, he is.
You know what Skald, I think you hit the nail on the head about what bothered me about the movie. I was simultaneously liking it while not liking it and I think it is because Superman is, as you put it, a dick.
Something else I didn’t like about the movie was the climax. First of all, he seemed to be too capable of preserving his strength and powers while transporting the huge landmass containing kryptonite into space. But there was no real final confronataion between Superman and Luthor. It just seemed so humdrum. Compare it to the cliactic scene in Spiderman.