What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

[Bruce_Begins]

He paints the guy as a saviour from above, and the only human desire we see him have is to not be alone... which is resloved in the form of his child.

First let me say that SR is not without some flaws, but still it is better than Superman 2, Superman 3, Superman 4.

The character of superman is same as in STM and S M 2, it just progresses from there.

Superman leaves for New Krypton without saying goodbye to Lois and she tells Clark Kent that he should have said that later on in the movie when Superman decides to lift New Krypton in the space, he says "Goodbye Lois" knowing that he might not survive lifting a Kryptonite studded continent, that is character progression right there.

He has no defensive strategy, he has no where to hide, and he just SITS THERE playing poker, waiting... waiting for what? Someone to come over on a boat and say 'Hey, that's some cool land you got there, can I have some?

Lex knows that the first threat that he will have to face is Superman, and he is waiting for him and he is prepared (although that involves Kryptonite, again.) the low intensity Kryptonite radiation that Superman cannot detect while flying at some height, starts to affect him as he lands on NK because it poisons him not just depowers him.

As for dealing with army he was prepared with the knowledge of making weapons from crystals as he say something to that effect in the movie, but it is not shown.

[FNSpidey]

Originally Posted by Dr.

Hmmm. I’m not sure where you’re getting this notion that Lex is perpetrating some kind of white-collar swindle – as if he plans to sell shares of NK on Wall Street or advertise parcels of NK land in real estate magazines. (Perhaps you’re conflating the STM scheme with the SR one.)

Clearly, Lex’s plan is much more akin to outright blackmail (or even an invasion by advanced aliens). In exchange for riches, he will spare lives and allow select individuals to take up residence on NK – where he’ll be supreme ruler. Very over-the-top, super villain type stuff. But not intrinsically incoherent or illogical.

I'll have to disagree. Lex's supposed "scheme" is one of the unforgivable failures of this film. It is indeed illogical in both conception and execution.

First, he's supposed to have all this "advanced alien technology" that will hold back entire nations and on which his whole "plot" is based. And what do we see of that in the movie? Absolutely nothing at all. Not only did they ignore one of the most important rules of film-making ("show, don't tell"), but they hardly even say anything about it. Lex just mentions it in passing, in just one line: "I have advanced alien technology.Bring it on". The whole plot of the film depends on a single line, with no visuals to justify it, or even make it noticable. That's not good film-making, it's amateurish in both script and direction.

Second, you say he's intending to spare lives and provide land in exchange for riches. Why even bring in a land scheme in the first place? If he has the power to oppose nations, why doesn't he just take what he wants? Why would he spare someone's life, and then throw in some "beachfront property" as a bonus? You either spare somebody's life in exchange for money, or sell some land in exchange for money. All this supposed land scheme is just another remnant of Singer's obsession with the only version of Superman (and Lex Luthor) he's ever known, shoehorned in there for virtually no reason. Again, bad film-making.

[Mostpowerful]

Originally Posted by FNSpidey

First, he's supposed to have all this "advanced alien technology" that will hold back entire nations and on which his whole "plot" is based. And what do we see of that in the movie? Absolutely nothing at all. Not only did they ignore one of the most important rules of film-making ("show, don't tell"), but they hardly even say anything about it. Lex just mentions it in passing, in just one line: "I have advanced alien technology.Bring it on". The whole plot of the film depends on a single line, with no visuals to justify it, or even make it noticable. That's not good film-making, it's amateurish in both script and direction.

.

No, he also talked about it during the train set scene. He said the crystals had the power to create weapons, vehicles (Supes ship), and cities, if I"m correct. And Lex created a freakin continent (almost) as proof.

(from IMDB):

Kitty Kowalski: [about Kryptonian technology] Sounds like a lot of hocus-pocus to me.
Lex Luthor: Well, naturally. To the primitive mind, any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic.
[Arthur C. Clarke's "Third Law" from "Profiles of the Future," 1973]




@bruce begins:

The character of superman is same as in STM and S M 2, it just progresses from there.

Superman leaves for New Krypton without saying goodbye to Lois and she tells Clark Kent that he should have said that later on in the movie when Superman decides to lift New Krypton in the space, he says "Goodbye Lois" knowing that he might not survive lifting a Kryptonite studded continent, that is character progression right there.

Well said.

[Spidey220987]

My favourite of the modern DC Live action films, in my opinion better than BB & TDK.
Was the 1st film I ever saw twice at the cinema, I enjoyed it that much!
I honestly don't get the hate. I relly wanted Brandon Routh back for the reboot.
Also the plane rescue is one of my all time favourite scenes from any film.

[Dozerman]

I like to think of myself as a superman sheep. So of course I like SR I still think you will hear a lot of the same complaints in MOS. I hope there was a different reason that they did not make a sequel like the producers did not like singer or something like that.

[mojo-x]

Originally Posted by Mostpowerful

No, he also talked about it during the train set scene. He said the crystals had the power to create weapons, vehicles (Supes ship), and cities, if I"m correct. And Lex created a freakin continent (almost) as proof.

(from IMDB):

Kitty Kowalski: [about Kryptonian technology] Sounds like a lot of hocus-pocus to me.
Lex Luthor: Well, naturally. To the primitive mind, any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic.
[Arthur C. Clarke's "Third Law" from "Profiles of the Future," 1973]




@bruce begins:


Well said.

Did it have the power to make some kind of alarm or security system, so your archenemy couldn’t just walk right in to your fortress and learn all your secrets?

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by mojo-x

Did it have the power to make some kind of alarm or security system, so your archenemy couldn’t just walk right in to your fortress and learn all your secrets?

I agree with your sarcasm… to an extent.

Once upon a time, a top secret FOS in the exotic and remote Arctic made a certain amount of sense. Now, the world is better explored and – alas – the Arctic is melting. So the very idea of a massive fortress that is both secret and secure is problematic.

But even in the good old days, many a super villain managed to find the FOS and infiltrate, sabotage and/or steal from it. It was a familiar Superman plot device in the classic comics (also used, if you recall, in SII). So as long as we’re not singling out SR as uniquely guilty of this sin, I’ll join you in your criticism.

[Bruce_Begins]

Originally Posted by Dr.

I agree with your sarcasm… to an extent.

Once upon a time, a top secret FOS in the exotic and remote Arctic made a certain amount of sense. Now, the world is better explored and – alas – the Arctic is melting. So the very idea of a massive fortress that is both secret and secure is problematic.

But even in the good old days, many a super villain managed to find the FOS and infiltrate, sabotage and/or steal from it. It was a familiar Superman plot device in the classic comics (also used, if you recall, in SII). So as long as we’re not singling out SR as uniquely guilty of this sin, I’ll join you in your criticism.

I think that Jor El initially designed the FOS to be without any security systems so that young Kal El can use it without having to worry about how to access it / enter it but once Kal El got all the info about his extinct world he should have made sure that it was more secure, he should have added some security systems to prevent unauthorized access.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by Mostpowerful

No, he also talked about it during the train set scene. He said the crystals had the power to create weapons, vehicles (Supes ship), and cities, if I"m correct. And Lex created a freakin continent (almost) as proof.

(from IMDB):

Kitty Kowalski: [about Kryptonian technology] Sounds like a lot of hocus-pocus to me.
Lex Luthor: Well, naturally. To the primitive mind, any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic.
[Arthur C. Clarke's "Third Law" from "Profiles of the Future," 1973]
.

But kind of weapons could he created though? What weapons could he create that keep the military out if they send soldiers on the continent to investigate?

Again this goes back to "show, don't tell". Film is visual medium, showing Lex using these weapons is far more effective then just saying he has them. Heck Lex creating these weapons and trying to take over the world would have made for a better plan then trying to create a continent and sell real estate on it.

[mojo-x]

That whole idea that land cannot be created is such an out dated plot. You mean a criminal mastermind like Luther never heard of Due By.

[Nevaratoiel]

I really didn't want to go see this film in 2006, so I didn't. I avoided it like the plague. "Lois having Superman's child? No way!" Now, after 5 years I finally decided to see it.

I must admit, having watched this review "What's so bad about Superman Returns?" I agree with most of what he's saying. It is a great movie and it deserved better.

It definitely deserved a sequel. But all the squeamish fan boys and girls didn't give it a chance and so the makers didn't give it a chance. Too bad, if you ask me.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Nevaratoiel

I really didn't want to go see this film in 2006, so I didn't. I avoided it like the plague. "Lois having Superman's child? No way!" Now, after 5 years I finally decided to see it.

I must admit, having watched this review "What's so bad about Superman Returns?" I agree with most of what he's saying. It is a great movie and it deserved better.

It definitely deserved a sequel. But all the squeamish fan boys and girls didn't give it a chance and so the makers didn't give it a chance. Too bad, if you ask me.

I agree. Never saw anything bad.

But take today's El Payaso piece of advice: Never decide not watching a movie based on other people's opinion.

[Nevaratoiel]

Oh, I formed my opinion before seeing Steve's Review. It's just that my opinion almost equals his review.

I'm not someone who goes with the crowd. Hell, I LIKED Wolverine Origins, despite the reviews and all fan bashing going around. This might say more about me than about the movie I suppose. Okay, it helped Gambit was in it and he's my all time favourite comic book character.

Is it surprising I'm not looking forward to "Man of Steel"?

[Dozerman]

They should make comic book that is a sequel to SR. I think that would be awesome.

[Nevaratoiel]

Hmmm... it won't happen, but I guess for me a movie is the way to go. I have nothing on comics these days. Bad art, bad stories... usually.

[Szetsilya]

Ok so this isnt really a serious thread discussing what is wrong with SR, but an attempt to get more people to watch this video on youtube?
As one of the few people who did like the idea of the son, even I have to admit it was done in a horrible way and painted the movie into a corner.
The one thing I hated the most about this film was the recreation of scenes from Superman TM, like Lois and Clark getting stuck in the revolving door, did they really think that was necessary and funny?
I will say that Lois and Clark flying was actually better than the original and more romantic, that was the one scene where I could feel their love for each other and the conflict within Lois.

[KalMart]

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

It's not a bad movie but it is bad for a Superman movie.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the film and why I didn't not like it. It still pisses me off that this is the Superman I waited 20 years to return to the screen. Very disappointing....

[MOS2013]

far too mopey, far too depressing, not enough action, poorly acted in the case of Kate Bosworth. A superman who was really impersonating the previous actor to play the part.

Its a mildly enjoyable film with some good parts, but there are too many big negatives.

Colours are a problem for me too, some of its too dark, the burgundy on the suit is horrendous.

[Jim-El]

I loved Singer's Donnerverse, however his script quite frankly sucked. Not to say I didn't enjoy the movie. Brandon Routh had the looks, but not the acting ability. Kevin Spacey did all he could do with what was given him. Kate Bosworth is a good actress, but was horrendous as Lois Lane. Did she smile once? Don't even bring up the "kid"...ugh! The visit to Krypton NOT being used was one critical mistake. It actually was one of the more interesting parts of the film that didn't make the final cut. Singer had some good pieces to work with, however it wasn't to be. I will always look at this film as an Avant-garde film. Sadly, you do not start up franchises being Avant-garde.

[Mostpowerful]

I love this SR review:

What Bryan Singer has done, with Superman Returns, is to create something lastingly sublime

http://www.sequart.org/magazine/1562...erman-returns/

He wrote it 6 years ago, and he still loves the film (according to recent comments on his site and twitter), unlike some fans..


Julian Darius also wrote this interesting article about comics (and he mentions and discusses SR in some of the comments):

Why Comics Have Failed to Achieve Real Respect

http://www.sequart.org/magazine/4079...-real-respect/

.

[MOS2013]

Sadly I think he's in the minority. The biggest disappointment for me was how SR was almost a non event.

i thought I'd have a film I could speak to people about, but as soon as it was out it seemed like everyone was done caring about it

For every positive review of the film you could probably find 20 reviews panning it. Its a shame the way it worked out in the end.

At least 'Man of Steel' looks like it could be on the right path to saving Superman!

[Mostpowerful]

SR got mostly positive reviews from the critics:

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/superman-returns

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

And it made more $ at the BO than Batman Begins WW. It crearly tells me that it had an audience. It made more $ than many Marvel films too, but people call those movies successful but SR was not? Yes I know the production budget was bigger, but general audiences don't care or know about that.

But yeah continue with your hyperbole that everybody hated the film.. it sounds like WB believed that hype, sadly.

[MOS2013]

Originally Posted by Mostpowerful

SR got mostly positive reviews from the critics:

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/superman-returns

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

And it made more $ at the BO than Batman Begins WW. It crearly tells me that it had an audience. It made more $ than many Marvel films too, but people call those movies successful but SR was not? Yes I know the production budget was bigger, but general audiences don't care or know about that.

But yeah continue with your hyperbole that everybody hated the film.. it sounds like WB believed that hype, sadly.

I was only offering my opinion, sorry.

But I'm guessing there's a reason it didn't get a sequel and its hard to find anyone who actually thought it was good. I think posting links to a video of someone explaining why they liked it reeks of desperation and insecurity.

What hype did WB buy?

Sorry if my opinion offended you, but I'm sure we can all look forward to MOS and hope that it really puts Superman back on the map.

[Szetsilya]

Watching SR now, big shout out to those flying scenes which were truly amazing to me.
I hate to say this because the guy got royally screwed but Brandon Routh just doesn't have enough screen prescence and charisma to pull off Superman. Not only does he hardly talk but even when he does it's rather bland and you could find yourself zoning out rather than being unable to take your eyes off him. He was imitating Christopher but didn't capture his charisma and sense of fun.