What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

[Mostpowerful]

^I disagree. To me Brandon embodied Superman (and Clark) perfectly. I love the movie and he is my fav thing about it. He is the heart and soul of the film.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7...z8vno1_500.gif

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7...z8vno2_500.gif

lots of charisma and presence

[MOS2013]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree but its not entirely his fault. He didn't have a lot to work with and his best lines were already perfected by Reeve some 30 years earlier.

It would have been more interesting if he was able to do his own take on the character, but having a rather wooden version of Reeve's superman wasn't ideal, I'm not surprised the guy hasn't managed to get any decent film work since which is a shame.

[JustSomeGuy]

Those videos perfectly capture why I thought Superman Returns was phenomenal. Well acted, well written, brilliantly shot, no cliche characters at all. The Richard White character was one of the best parts of the movie. That comparison he makes to Gatsby and Daisy is spot on. And Brandon Routh was unbelievable. I still say it's a top 5 superhero movie of all time. I'm probably the only one who thinks that though, but it doesn't matter.

[charl_huntress]

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.

That review is the biggest crock of horse****.... His review sounds like a love letter to Singer not a real review of the film.

Meh...for me there is not one memorable moment from SR. lol...only part I really remember is the kid throwing the piano. The rest just faded into oblivion. I understand there are people who like the film and to each there own, but I think most would agree it wasn't a very exciting superhero film...which should have been what Singer was aiming form. Not a gripping character study and a love letter to the Donnerverse.

[Mostpowerful]

Originally Posted by JustSomeGuy

Those videos perfectly capture why I thought Superman Returns was phenomenal. Well acted, well written, brilliantly shot, no cliche characters at all. The Richard White character was one of the best parts of the movie. That comparison he makes to Gatsby and Daisy is spot on. And Brandon Routh was unbelievable. I still say it's a top 5 superhero movie of all time. I'm probably the only one who thinks that though, but it doesn't matter.

I think so too, and many others do. You just won't find them in comicbook sites.

This review and its audience loved it too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2006/07/0...6_review.shtml

I loved this part: "Confronted with a role as constricting as his famous suit, newcomer Brandon Routh can only be lauded for the grace and quiet dignity he brings to the part. (He's just as good, if not better, as bumbling alter-ego Clark Kent.)"

Honestly, if SR didn't get a sequel I think the Siegel and Shuster lawsuit is mainly to blame.

[Mostpowerful]

Originally Posted by MOS2013

I agree but its not entirely his fault. He didn't have a lot to work with and his best lines were already perfected by Reeve some 30 years earlier.

It would have been more interesting if he was able to do his own take on the character, but having a rather wooden version of Reeve's superman wasn't ideal, I'm not surprised the guy hasn't managed to get any decent film work since which is a shame.

you sound familiar.. is this your new handle?

[MOS2013]

I'm completely new to the forum

I won't dig through the bad reviews, instead i'll just say I felt let down by the film. I'm glad that people can get enjoyment out of it though, if you or anyone else likes it then thats all that matters.

I do get the distinct impression Man of Steel will have no chance with you though seeing as Routh has been dropped

[GreenKToo]

Hindsight is 20/20. If WB had known things were gonna turn out the way they did, i'm sure a supervillain would have been added, and the plot changed from creating real estate to making actual kryptonian weapons.
Would that have saved that franchise? who knows, couldnt have hurt tho.

Personally, I would have recast Lois and Lex.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by hopefuldreamer

I appreciate that the guy has put together a very well thought out and cohesive arguement... but I feel like he glosses over the most jarring of complaints and focuses mostly on the one's he can counter with an arguement.

For instance:

1. He argues that it's wrong to complain about Richard because he is a good, likeable character.

But that's EXACTLY the problem.

We see Superman hitting on and nearly kissing a woman who is engaged to another man. And this man isn't some jerk of a character that we can easily dismiss. We can't just say 'screw it, she'd be happier with Superman' and kind of egg them on like you'd expect. He's actually a really decent guy, who doesn't deserve to be treated in that way.

I watch the movie, and I think 'Richard wouldn't have done that to Superman if the tables were turned'... what does that say about our hero? And why would you include a character in your film that appears more moral, more caring, more emotionally available, less selfish and less cold?

2. He says that the kid being included is great because it's all about the theme of the movie.

Well half of my problem with the movie is it's theme... 'The son becomes the father, the father the son'... which seems to be all it's about!

And it seems to be repeatedly shoved in our face in a way that doesn't resonate with many people, because the repeated line kind of doesn't make sense... it has never made sense to me... saying it over and over again in Marlon Brandos voice doesn't help!

The son becomes the father... (okay, Superman has become a dad, I get that), the father becomes the son... (huh? Jor-el has become Superman? or Superman has become Jason? what the heck does that mean?)

3. He address the film being boring, by saying there are plenty of action scenes. Here he is glossing over one of the most popular complaints - lack of fight scene.

FIGHT scenes.

Not action scenes.

No one is saying that there was no action in this film. Just that a superhero like Superman would have been a really exciting opportunity to see some spectacular fight scenes.

4. His arguement about Superman Returns being it's own movie and therefore having it's own Superman, meaning you can't complain it's unsupermanly... is just nuts.

OF COURSE you can complain when an interpretation of the character steers so far away from the original that you start to feel he is no longer an interpretation of the character, but an OOC version.

Flying off for 5 years into space would perhaps not be unsupermanly if it had an ounce of logic behind it... like any kind of proof that anyone was out there. It might not be so unsupermanly if he'd held a press conference, told everyone and apologised. If he'd considered for a second the implications his being gone might have on things like Lex's court case.

The whole thing just made him look incredibly impulsive, selfish and stupid.

5. It's the same with Luthor's plot for me...

It's not that it's similar to the old films that bothers me. I get it, it's a homage.

It's that it makes NO sense. Even LESS sense than the first films land plot.

In the first film, he'd bought and secured the land that would be left. He would then OWN the coast. You can at least see where he would be making money here.

But in this film, Lex actual believes two INSANE things: 1. People will want to buy some land on his big green rock... 2. The government will allow him to keep it.

What rights does he have to that land? What ownership does he have? And beyond that, what in the world in stopped the army from just flying in and killing him.

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?'

AHHHHHHHHHH! It's just soooooo stupid!

What's so bad about Superman Returns?

1. 3 significant plot points make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER! - Superman flying off to Krypton for 5 years without telling the world
- Lex's land plot
- Jason's conception (which is never explained, but we have to assume it comes after the events of Superman II... which Lois doesn't rememeber... and yet she does in this film... and yet, if she remembers them sleeping together, why doesnt she remember that he's Clark?!)

2. It came at a time when Superhero films were moving into the modern era... and it planted itself firmly in the past like someone who refuses to buy CD's and will only listen to things that come out on vinyl.

3. While utilising great effects in some scenes, it completely missed the opportunity, with as huge a budget as it had, for some SPECTACULAR visuals. Physical fight scenes between super powered beings for instance (thank god for MOS ).

4. It made Superman unlikeable. He was depressed, lonely and kind of sulking for half the movie. He had no natural warmth... he came across very ALIEN in every sense of the word... and yet there was no effort to show his human side (other than the one drink he had with Jimmy, which is probably my favourite scene)... to show him eating his mom's home cooked food, to show him in his apartment doing normal things, sleeping, getting ready for work, laughing at a tv show he hasn't seen in 5 years... any of those things, just to ground him as the main character.

The problem was that Singer, and to a lesser extent Donner, is that they could only see Superman... they couldn't see Clark. He saw this lonely alien being, stranger from another world, and seemed to just leave out all the rest. All the aspects that make a character tangible as a protagonist.

But at least with Donner's, he had a Superman who WAS naturally warm. Who was likeable and happy and enjoyed helping people. Not some douchebag who, after leaving her with no explanation for 5 years, would then take Lois up into the air and tell her everyone was crying out for a saviour, as though proving her wrong in this arrogant and resentful way... and then apologises like 'i'm sorry I left you all to fend for yourselves... but it's okay, i'm back now'... If I were Lois, i'd have told him where to shove his apology.

*sigh*

Maybe I should write a blog about how much I hate Superman Returns...

[Nite-Watchman]

Originally Posted by GreenKToo

Hindsight is 20/20. If WB had known things were gonna turn out the way they did, i'm sure a supervillain would have been added, and the plot changed from creating real estate to making actual kryptonian weapons.
Would that have saved that franchise? who knows, couldnt have hurt tho.

Personally, I would have recast Lois and Lex.

Recast Lois for sure. I don't know what they were thinking with Kate Bosworth. I did rather like Spacey in the role of Lex tho.

[Slushy]

No supervillain for Superman to fight. I guarantee they had put in a climatic fight scene (instead of Superman lifting a fu**ing rock), SR wouldn't have been so hated on.

[JustSomeGuy]

I will agree to one point - the movie is very slow, very methodical, and to the user who said Superman didn't fight anyone, you are absolutely right. And maybe it would have been better to use an actual supervillain he could have fought.

But that doesn't change the fact that I still think Superman Returns is extremely well made. Yes there are complaints, but I believe that objectively speaking, the film doesn't have a lot of flaws. I try to grade a movie the way a teacher might grade an essay - you don't look at the content so much as the structure. If you complain about the content too much, it becomes very subjective, which I try to stay away from.

And I actually disagree with the idea that the film relies too heavily on the audience being familiar with Superman 2. All you really need to know is:

1. Superman went to Krypton some amount of years ago.
2. He and Lois were together. Whether "together" means they slept together or what is sort of open to interpretation at the beginning of the movie. But the only thing the viewer needs to know is that they have a history.

I don't really see anything else in the Donner films which the viewer needs to know. And to be honest, asking the viewer to know those above 2 things isn't really asking that much.

Now I also want to identify two items people commonly complain about when talking about this movie:

1. Luthor was just hatching another cheesy real estate plot
2. Jason was pointless, and a stupid character

I actually really liked both of these items in the film, and I will explain why:

To begin, the focus of the entire movie is that Superman is alone. And I am glad that is the focus, because very often in a superhero film the focus is not on the hero, it often strays because it's difficult to focus on the hero. This movie the focus is really on Superman the whole time, and how he so incredibly alone. Krypton is gone. And now apparently Earth (though it's really just Lois) doesn't need him anymore. He is more alone than he has ever been.

Now, having said that, on to those two complaints:

1. Luthor was just hatching another cheesy real estate plot

I think it sort of flew over people's heads that the reason Luthor hates Superman is really out of jealousy. That's why he wants to make the island. Kevin Spacey makes that wonderful speech citing Prometheus, about how he steals from the gods and gives their power down to the people. That's what he wants to do by making the island. And his plan wasn't even just the island - he says the crystals have the power to make weapons and other advanced technology. That's what drives him - he wants to take what makes Superman so special and give it to the people of Earth. And of course, it wouldn't be this Donner version of Lex if he didn't try to profit from it


2. Jason was pointless, and a stupid character

The whole reason Jason is in the film is for Superman to find out in the end that he isn't alone. That's the point. Superman is struggling with being the last of his kind, and Jason is that happy ending he has been looking for. The speech Brandon Routh gives at the end, to a sleeping Jason, is phenomenal. I loved loved loved Brandon Routh in this movie.

And another thing I think people fail to realize - Superman throwing the island into space is supposed to represent him throwing away Krypton. His birth planet hurts him now. Earth is his true home. That's what the island really represented.

I know this is long and detailed - and I realize that people might not like the film for these very reasons, that much of it is metaphor, and that it is very slow paced, but it is still why I love this movie so much. It is very detailed, very layered, from start to finish, shot beautifully, highly original, well acted, well written, great score, there is so much in this movie that I love. I'm really very sad that we will never get a Singer directed sequel, which I am confidant he would have knocked out of the park. Oh well, at least we got one Superman movie from him.

[Nevaratoiel]

Last night I watched Superman Returns because I was bored. I've loved this film ever since I saw it the first time, and that was quite a while after it was released to the cinemas. So I missed all the hype. I hate hypes. Everytime I see it I notice different things. And as JustSomeGuy said, from the objective viewpoint there aren't much flaws.

So, yeah, to make a long story short, I do agree with him (JustSomeGuy). You don't have to know a lot about Superman, you just have to know the basics of his relationship with Lois, and a little bit about who and what Superman is. Other than that, the film makes it all pretty clear. I loved the emotional feel of the film, I keep saying Brandon Routh did the best he could with the handles he was given.

And what JustSomeGuy said.

[Mostpowerful]

Excellent post JustSomeGuy!

I will agree to one point - the movie is very slow, very methodical, and to the user who said Superman didn't fight anyone, you are absolutely right. And maybe it would have been better to use an actual supervillain he could have fought.

It's not very slow to me; I'm just so engrossed in the story and the emotion that I don't feel it I guess. And it seems some needed a supervillain for Superman to fight, but I didn't. I enjoyed the movie as it is just fine. I was willing to wait for the supervillain in a sequel.

1. Superman went to Krypton some amount of years ago.
2. He and Lois were together. Whether "together" means they slept together or what is sort of open to interpretation at the beginning of the movie. But the only thing the viewer needs to know is that they have a history.

I don't really see anything else in the Donner films which the viewer needs to know. And to be honest, asking the viewer to know those above 2 things isn't really asking that much.

Agreed. When I saw SR I hadn't seen the Reeve movies in a very long time (I never visited Superman forums either. I started because of SR), and I didn't have any problems understanding the story.

To begin, the focus of the entire movie is that Superman is alone. And I am glad that is the focus, because very often in a superhero film the focus is not on the hero, it often strays because it's difficult to focus on the hero. This movie the focus is really on Superman the whole time, and how he so incredibly alone. Krypton is gone. And now apparently Earth (though it's really just Lois) doesn't need him anymore. He is more alone than he has ever been.

I agree, it was really about Superman, and there was plenty of character development. All the main characters had good character development, including Lois; some people say that her story sucks and that nothing happens to her, and that's so wrong because she clearly experiences important changes throughout the movie. She even saved Superman with Richard's help.

I think it sort of flew over people's heads that the reason Luthor hates Superman is really out of jealousy. That's why he wants to make the island. Kevin Spacey makes that wonderful speech citing Prometheus, about how he steals from the gods and gives their power down to the people. That's what he wants to do by making the island. And his plan wasn't even just the island - he says the crystals have the power to make weapons and other advanced technology. That's what drives him - he wants to take what makes Superman so special and give it to the people of Earth. And of course, it wouldn't be this Donner version of Lex if he didn't try to profit from it

Exactly. Spacey is my Lex.

The whole reason Jason is in the film is for Superman to find out in the end that he isn't alone. That's the point. Superman is struggling with being the last of his kind, and Jason is that happy ending he has been looking for. The speech Brandon Routh gives at the end, to a sleeping Jason, is phenomenal. I loved loved loved Brandon Routh in this movie.

AGREED! It was the main point of the story. His son was his prize for saving the world.

And another thing I think people fail to realize - Superman throwing the island into space is supposed to represent him throwing away Krypton. His birth planet hurts him now. Earth is his true home. That's what the island really represented.

Pefectly said.

I know this is long and detailed - and I realize that people might not like the film for these very reasons, that much of it is metaphor, and that it is very slow paced, but it is still why I love this movie so much. It is very detailed, very layered, from start to finish, shot beautifully, highly original, well acted, well written, great score, there is so much in this movie that I love. I'm really very sad that we will never get a Singer directed sequel, which I am confidant he would have knocked out of the park. Oh well, at least we got one Superman movie from him.

True, it's better than nothing at all. SR is a gorgeous, intense and very heartfelt Superman film, I enjoy it so much. Another thing I love about it is its exquisite subtlety. It's one of the things I really dislike about the Nolan Batman films., they aren't subtle, too much exposition through very cheesy dialogue. It gets me out of the movies a lot of the time. Not bad films but just not my cup of tea.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

No supervillain for Superman to fight. I guarantee they had put in a climatic fight scene (instead of Superman lifting a fu**ing rock), SR wouldn't have been so hated on.

You must not be a fan of STM either (Supes threw zero punches in that movie as well).

[MOS2013]

Originally Posted by JustSomeGuy

I will agree to one point - the movie is very slow, very methodical, and to the user who said Superman didn't fight anyone, you are absolutely right. And maybe it would have been better to use an actual supervillain he could have fought.

But that doesn't change the fact that I still think Superman Returns is extremely well made. Yes there are complaints, but I believe that objectively speaking, the film doesn't have a lot of flaws. I try to grade a movie the way a teacher might grade an essay - you don't look at the content so much as the structure. If you complain about the content too much, it becomes very subjective, which I try to stay away from.

And I actually disagree with the idea that the film relies too heavily on the audience being familiar with Superman 2. All you really need to know is:

1. Superman went to Krypton some amount of years ago.
2. He and Lois were together. Whether "together" means they slept together or what is sort of open to interpretation at the beginning of the movie. But the only thing the viewer needs to know is that they have a history.

I don't really see anything else in the Donner films which the viewer needs to know. And to be honest, asking the viewer to know those above 2 things isn't really asking that much.

Now I also want to identify two items people commonly complain about when talking about this movie:

1. Luthor was just hatching another cheesy real estate plot
2. Jason was pointless, and a stupid character

I actually really liked both of these items in the film, and I will explain why:

To begin, the focus of the entire movie is that Superman is alone. And I am glad that is the focus, because very often in a superhero film the focus is not on the hero, it often strays because it's difficult to focus on the hero. This movie the focus is really on Superman the whole time, and how he so incredibly alone. Krypton is gone. And now apparently Earth (though it's really just Lois) doesn't need him anymore. He is more alone than he has ever been.

Now, having said that, on to those two complaints:

1. Luthor was just hatching another cheesy real estate plot

I think it sort of flew over people's heads that the reason Luthor hates Superman is really out of jealousy. That's why he wants to make the island. Kevin Spacey makes that wonderful speech citing Prometheus, about how he steals from the gods and gives their power down to the people. That's what he wants to do by making the island. And his plan wasn't even just the island - he says the crystals have the power to make weapons and other advanced technology. That's what drives him - he wants to take what makes Superman so special and give it to the people of Earth. And of course, it wouldn't be this Donner version of Lex if he didn't try to profit from it


2. Jason was pointless, and a stupid character

The whole reason Jason is in the film is for Superman to find out in the end that he isn't alone. That's the point. Superman is struggling with being the last of his kind, and Jason is that happy ending he has been looking for. The speech Brandon Routh gives at the end, to a sleeping Jason, is phenomenal. I loved loved loved Brandon Routh in this movie.

And another thing I think people fail to realize - Superman throwing the island into space is supposed to represent him throwing away Krypton. His birth planet hurts him now. Earth is his true home. That's what the island really represented.

I know this is long and detailed - and I realize that people might not like the film for these very reasons, that much of it is metaphor, and that it is very slow paced, but it is still why I love this movie so much. It is very detailed, very layered, from start to finish, shot beautifully, highly original, well acted, well written, great score, there is so much in this movie that I love. I'm really very sad that we will never get a Singer directed sequel, which I am confidant he would have knocked out of the park. Oh well, at least we got one Superman movie from him.

thats a good interpretation, but either way that was an absolutely ridiculous scene.

He's exposed to a little bit of kryptonite and it weakens him to the extent human thugs beat him up. Then hes stabbed with krptonite and nearly dies.

Suddenly he's somehow able to lift a huge continent laced with kryptonite and throw it into space? Gimme a break, that was taking it too far.

shot beautifully, highly original, well acted, well written, great score

I'm honestly struggling to know if you're joking with this bit.

For starters its too dark, dark to the point I struggle to see Superman in some of the flying scenes, it's also got lots of seemingly unnecessary and poorly executed CGI. (Superman propelling the space shuttle out of the earths atmosphere? it was like looking at a video game).

Highly original? this was the most striking part, this movie is ANYTHING but original. Its one giant love letter to the original STM, with the same structure and lots of dialogue taken from the original too.

Well acted? Routh did a fine job, Spacey did a reasonable job, Marsden did a great job, but Bosworth was a terrible terrible choice, she was poor and shes a big part of the film too. I thought Langella was very underwhelming too and not quite the way I view Perry White.

Well written, I couldn't agree on either because its rather dull and the basic plan of Luthor is again too similar to that of STM, it also has some dreadful dialogue, particularly from Lois.

The score? It does have a great score, that I'll give you, but again its all working from Williams original theme. Though I must admit I did enjoy the new themes which were used. I have the SR soundtrack and I love it, 'How could you leave us' is a lovely piece of music.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Nevaratoiel

And as JustSomeGuy said, from the objective viewpoint there aren't much flaws.

Let's be honest here, reading thru both yours and his prior posts, "objective" you two are NOT.

[Mostpowerful]

^MOS2013...

Only bones are similar to STM, but the meat/story, sorry is very different. It's the brilliance of SR to us who love it and admire it. You don't like it, we get it. Maybe MOS will be the movie for you.. time will tell. Now, we got the message, you don't care for SR, and that's ok. Maybe the MOS forum is for you.

thats a good interpretation, but either way that was an absolutely ridiculous scene.

He's exposed to a little bit of kryptonite and it weakens him to the extent human thugs beat him up. Then hes stabbed with krptonite and nearly dies.

Suddenly he's somehow able to lift a huge continent laced with kryptonite and throw it into space? Gimme a break, that was taking it too far.

It's not more ridiculous than turning back time. Besides, the island wasn't pure Kryptonite, and it was also surrounded by seabed, which shielded Superman from the effects of the kryptonite and gave him enough strength to do the job. Also, he had a solar recharge. I bought it, plus it nearly killed him if it wasn't for Lois and Jason. It works for me.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Mostpowerful

^MOS2013...

Only bones are similar to STM, but the meat/story, sorry is very different. It's the brilliance of SR to us who love it and admire it. You don't like it, we get it. Maybe MOS will be the movie for you.. time will tell. Now, we got the message, you don't care for SR, and that's ok. Maybe the MOS forum is for you.

Who are YOU to dictate what opinions can be expressed here? Is this the "Pro-Superman Returns" forum?

I just love how people think only THEIR opinions can be expressed, and anyone who disagrees should just "shut-up".

[Mostpowerful]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

Who are YOU to dictate what opinions can be expressed here? Is this the "Pro-Superman Returns" forum?

I just love how people think only THEIR opinions can be expressed, and anyone who disagrees should just "shut-up".

I was merely making a suggestion, I'm allowed. I think JustSomeGuy presented reasonable ideas that make the movie good/work, but everytime MOS2013 comes to tell us that our ideas are wrong. The message was sent, he doesn't like SR. It gets boring.

Oh wait, but this is the internet! silly me, lol.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by MOS2013

thats a good interpretation, but either way that was an absolutely ridiculous scene.

He's exposed to a little bit of kryptonite and it weakens him to the extent human thugs beat him up. Then hes stabbed with krptonite and nearly dies.

Suddenly he's somehow able to lift a huge continent laced with kryptonite and throw it into space? Gimme a break, that was taking it too far.

Not only that, he did it with kryptonite still inside of his body.

One major "sin" of movie-making is creating your own rules, then breaking them on a whim. This is exactly what Singer did here.

I'm honestly struggling to know if you're joking with this bit.

Unfortunately, I don't think so...

For starters its too dark, dark to the point I struggle to see Superman in some of the flying scenes, it's also got lots of seemingly unnecessary and poorly executed CGI. (Superman propelling the space shuttle out of the earths atmosphere? it was like looking at a video game).

Not as bad as the poorly-rendered CGI puppet at the end. It's mind-boggling how BAD of a decision it was to leave that in.



Yikes.

Highly original? this was the most striking part, this movie is ANYTHING but original. Its one giant love letter to the original STM, with the same structure and lots of dialogue taken from the original too.

Original is a word very rarely used for this film outside of the small group of fans it has.

Well acted? Routh did a fine job, Spacey did a reasonable job, Marsden did a great job, but Bosworth was a terrible terrible choice, she was poor and shes a big part of the film too. I thought Langella was very underwhelming too and not quite the way I view Perry White.

Disagree on Routh doing a fine job, but his post-SR career and box office takings say more than I ever could.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Mostpowerful

I was merely making a suggestion, I'm allowed. I think JustSomeGuy presented reasonable ideas that make the movie good/work, but everytime MOS2013 comes to tell us that our ideas are wrong. The message was sent, he doesn't like SR. It gets boring.

He counters what was said with well-reasoned posts. No name-calling or rudeness.

I suggest you respect that many people disliked this film.

Oh wait, but this is the internet! silly me, lol.

Yeah, people disliking something you like?

How dare they.

[Thundercrack85]

I would say the most fundamental flaw of Superman Returns was the fact that it was essentially sold as a pseudo-sequel to the Donner films.

As a result, Routh's Superman, was never allowed to get out of Reeve's shadow.

[MOS2013]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

Not only that, he did it with kryptonite still inside of his body.

One major "sin" of movie-making is creating your own rules, then breaking them on a whim. This is exactly what Singer did here.



Unfortunately, I don't think so...



Not as bad as the poorly-rendered CGI puppet at the end. It's mind-boggling how BAD of a decision it was to leave that in.



Yikes.



Original is a word very rarely used for this film outside of the small group of fans it has.



Disagree on Routh doing a fine job, but his post-SR career and box office takings say more than I ever could.

I can't believe the used that shot, why could that scene not have been done with wire work? crazy.

I thought Routh did a good job with the rather limited dialogue and ammunition he had though, I couldn't fault him too much.

Heres a link to a rather large image of the shot that really bugged me

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/857...7134655ah6.jpg

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

He counters what was said with well-reasoned posts. No name-calling or rudeness.

I suggest you respect that many people disliked this film.



Yeah, people disliking something you like?

How dare they.

Cheers mate. As you said, just putting my own point across, if this section is strictly for Pro-SR discussion then I apologise.

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

I would say the most fundamental flaw of Superman Returns was the fact that it was essentially sold as a pseudo-sequel to the Donner films.

As a result, Routh's Superman, was never allowed to get out of Reeve's shadow.

This is true, with hindsight it was a bad idea. Trying to replicate Reeve's Superman and taking dialogue from the original (especially key lines like 'I hope this incident hasn't put you off flying) was always going to be torture.


MostPowerful, I'm not just highlighting the flaws of SR for the fun of it, I'm just trying to engage in the discussion which is what the forum (I presume) is all about. I notice that you didn't exactly waste any time in rushing in to the MOS forum to declare that it's too dark or whatever, so I'm not sure why thats okay but me explaining what didn't work for me in SR isn't.

People are talking about being objective, but one could argue that discussing the film with someone who is on first name terms with 'Brandon' isn't completely objective.

I'm really glad you and lots of other people liked the film, it's good that people get enjoyment from it, if you like it that's all that matters, you shouldn't feel threatened by people who don't like it.

I like LOVE loads of films that are widely regarded as being **** films, but I won't let it bother me in the slightest, you like what you like. I'm not exactly pro-MOS either, I'm very much on the fence with it, I like what I've seen so far, but then I'm willing to admit that the director of MOS has had previous film trailers which were impressive only for the actual films to fall short.

[JustSomeGuy]

Originally Posted by MOS2013

thats a good interpretation, but either way that was an absolutely ridiculous scene.

He's exposed to a little bit of kryptonite and it weakens him to the extent human thugs beat him up. Then hes stabbed with krptonite and nearly dies.

Suddenly he's somehow able to lift a huge continent laced with kryptonite and throw it into space? Gimme a break, that was taking it too far.



I'm honestly struggling to know if you're joking with this bit.

For starters its too dark, dark to the point I struggle to see Superman in some of the flying scenes, it's also got lots of seemingly unnecessary and poorly executed CGI. (Superman propelling the space shuttle out of the earths atmosphere? it was like looking at a video game).

Highly original? this was the most striking part, this movie is ANYTHING but original. Its one giant love letter to the original STM, with the same structure and lots of dialogue taken from the original too.

Well acted? Routh did a fine job, Spacey did a reasonable job, Marsden did a great job, but Bosworth was a terrible terrible choice, she was poor and shes a big part of the film too. I thought Langella was very underwhelming too and not quite the way I view Perry White.

Well written, I couldn't agree on either because its rather dull and the basic plan of Luthor is again too similar to that of STM, it also has some dreadful dialogue, particularly from Lois.

The score? It does have a great score, that I'll give you, but again its all working from Williams original theme. Though I must admit I did enjoy the new themes which were used. I have the SR soundtrack and I love it, 'How could you leave us' is a lovely piece of music.

Well maybe I am not being objective, objective is a relative statement I guess. And I never understood why people didn't like Bosworth as Lois Lane? I thought she did a fantastic job. I could maybe see that she looked a little young, but her performance? I thought she was great. Clearly I am in the minority here though. I thought the rooftop scene between Lois and Superman was so so great. Like when I think of a bad performance by an actress in a superhero movie...I think of January Jones in First Class...that is some god awful acting, at least I think so. I thought Bosworth was great. She had a very no-nonsense attitude which she pulled off greatly.

And when I say it was beautifully shot, I think of him chasing down the plane and saving it, listening in space, lois and him floating above the daily planet and flying through the city, flying up and soaking up the sunlight, getting rid of the land mass and falling back to earth, just a bunch of stuff that I thought looked awesome. EDIT: I am more talking about the cinematography, not the CGI, which I agree had it's subpar moments.

But I especially love when he gets physically beaten up by Luthor's henchmen. The entire sequence was shot to emphasize just how ridiculous Superman actually looks:



It's an incredibly dark, wet, cave like setting, with Luthor's henchman wearing very dark colors. And they are beating a guy up who is wearing blue tights and a red cape, with Luthor standing in the background, in all white. It's such a great juxtaposition.

The way it is shot is to really emphasize the fact that wearing blue tights and red underwear really does look stupid. The contrast is glaring. And that picture doesn't even do it justice I think, that whole sequence is phenomenal.

There are so many moments in this film that are there to emphasize the notion that Superman, on the inside, is a guy like anyone else. Except he happens to have powers. It's why he wants Lois Lane for himself and tries to take her away from Richard. It's why he even spies on her at one point in the movie. He isn't perfect. This is what people might do if they happened to have powers. And I liked that they did that. A common complaint about Superman is that he is too perfect. Well, they humanized him in this movie, quite a bit. And it made for a great film (to me).

I think the fact is that this film is probably a little too artsy, if that is the right word, for a summer blockbuster Superman movie. It's probably why it has a very small (but still present) number of dedicated fans, but the general audience panned it. That would be my guess. So if you don't like stuff like that, then you won't like this movie. I love stuff like that. So I loved the movie lol. Pretty simple really. Not to mention it is filled with tons and tons of parallels to Jesus, even more so than the original film, though I still thought it was done (for the most part) very subtle, and very well.