View Single Post
Old 11-17-2013, 11:54 AM   #333
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,844
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Originally Posted by Dr. View Post
Using a Kryptonian antagonist has a number of obvious advantages. 1) Villain is a physical equal to Supes (kryptonite not necessary). 2) No need for extra exposition on how Villain acquired his wacky powers (the exposition that applies to Supes covers any other Kryptonian). 3) Common history/backstory allows for more dramatic and personal hero/villain interactions (as opposed to some generic monster/robot).

True, Goyer might have renamed the guy Admiral Doz (or some such) instead. But pretty much any Kryptonian bad guy is going to draw comparisons to SII and be called a Zod clone anyway. So… in for a penny, in for a pound.
Of course it has obvious advantages. But it's still borrowing the general plotline from Donner movies. Which I don't have a problem with. But if we're going to be picky about that with SR...


Originally Posted by Joshua_B View Post
Singer just leaned on the Donner era far too much...and while I think Brandon Routh was okay, he looked way too young for Superman. Kevin Spacey was great as Lex, and Kate Bosworth's version of Lois reminded me of Erica Durance on "Smallville". Frank Langella was far too gentle as Perry, and Sam Huntington's performance just annoyed me after a while. I actually liked James Marsden as Richard White, even though it resulted in Cyclops being killed off for "X3". I also liked the idea of Superman having a kid, but the history Singer created for the film was too vague.

On the whole, "Returns" was far too dependent on what had come before; it's still light-years ahead of "Superman III", though.
Of course SR was dependent on STM and SII. It was a (vague) sequel to those.


Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
Now that I've seen MOS, I realize the biggest thing I didn't like about SR is it had a bad Lois and the relationship between Supes and Lois was...ugh. I don't even want to talk about because it will make me mad. Not too mention the super dickery on display like stalking and not saying good bye. Jeeze
Well, I liked MOS's Lois. But that kiss at the end was kind of gratuitous.

While not the best love interest, SR's Lois-Superman relationship was at the very least different from the average one, where they meet, kinda like each other, he saves her and she falls for him.

In SR, it was a very difficult situation. He made a huge mistake, she loves him but wants to move on, she needs it and have tried. But she can't because she loves him. But even when she loves him and even when she doesn't love his new boyfriend as much, she must stand for him and say no to her true love. She must move on even if she wanted to stay with Superman. And that was difficult... but not as much as when, later on, she finds out her son is Superman's.

Won't change anyone's opinion, but this alone is far more innovative and complex than the average superhero film's romance. Where, even if there's a second candidate, he's usually ugly and/or pedantic so we can easily hate him and prefer our hero over him. Singer decided to avoid that easy route and gave us a new boyfriend who's as heroic as Superman. Much closer to real life. And far less overused.


Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON View Post
While the movie does have problems with its own identity, I have never got a cold and distant feeling from the movie. It has tons of heart, and a lot of emotional scenes which prevent this from occuring IMO and its why I can still watch and love the movie. It has other problems but I wouldnt consider that one of them.

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON View Post
But it at least changed many things around, MOS Zod wasnt SMII Zod, they were very different in fact, despite having similar goals. Its like Batman '89 Joker vs TDK Joker, same character, some similarities, but two very different takes. MOS being an origin story obviously meant changes from SMII as well. I think it did it different enough for the movie to have its own identity while still paying homage.
Of course they changed things. They also changed things for SR (respect to STM) so that's why i find funny people have problems with one and not the other.

Now what you say about the two Jokers is very interesting because they had the exact same purpose. They were very similar, except that Batman had no problems with killing in B89, which made a difference in Nicholson's Joker, since there's no point in trying to make Batman kill.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote