What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

[CGHulk]

edit.

[GeekSummit]

Is this thing still on?

Plain and simple this movie failed in a way that the Star Wars Prequels failed... And really on its own maybe it could have been perceived MUCH better... despite the Deadbeat Dad storyline... The obliteration of the existance of the 2 existing sequels that this was supposed to replace (I Liked Superman III MUCH better... I know... stone me...) There was too much agenda.

Sure it was a fanboy wet dream to get to "re-remake" and Iconic Superhero movie... the very movie that MADE superhero movies plausible and marketable... But don't let that go to your head. To do so is to find yourself constantly tailoring an existing masterpiece to your own personal taste which can't satisfy everybody. Clearly this movie wasn't made to satisfy fans... The word is out... Box Office and Home Box Office... the best way to get rid of copies of this movie was to piggy back it in an irresistable Christopher Reeve 14 Disc - Ultimate Superman Collection... simple case in point.

I waited and waited anticipated the say this movie would hit the big screen. My wife and I went to see it. Up to the day I bragged up and down that Superman was back... Forgave the little ticks of the costume... The little licences... Using Brando's re-animated cranium... The night we walked out of the theater... I apologized for taking my wife to a movie I waited 2 years to see and she was glad to have gone with me. I think my apology was for all the future undoing of this movie I would ever do in sheer disappointment.

In summary... Have you ever been to a tribute show of one of your favorite artists? That's how I felt when I left the theater... Even LESS so... I felt like I had been told I was going to see Elvis LIVE and when I got there it was a near perfect doppleganger with a set list too short and a band too small. Tickets should have been on DEEP discount.

Just sayin...

[Spider-Aziz]

After seeing it again, the only problem I have with it is it's a little hard to see it ignores Superman III & IV and is meant as an alternate sequel to Superman II
The regular cut has no Krypton, and it's about 2 & a half hours long

[dru-zod2501]

I liked Superman Returns, I've seen it >150 times

but one of the biggest problems with it is that it's unapologetically stuck in the past. Singer wanted to repackage the old Superman and make it look new, but it didn't work; he relied so heavily on the past that it basically turned into a remake of the original. There were no new ideas he brought to the table.

[LL2K2]

Looking back on this film, there's definitely an element of nostalgia. It isn't just reflected in the nods to the 1978 film. If you take a closer look, there are elements which make it seem like it belongs in the 1930s or 1940s, almost noirish, in fact.

[elgaz]

It's a very confused film, ultimately. Singer might have had a clear vision of what he was doing, but the rest of us didn't. What is it? Semi-sequel? Reboot? Use a new cast but retain some old ones, whilst ignoring some of the prequels?

Before you even flick a switch on a camera, your film needs to have a clear purpose.

[Tyrone Parker]

It should have been a total reboot with a new take on Superman. Instead it was a rehash of the same old crap and provided no excitement or anything we have'nt seen before.

Superman was also an effeminate wimp in the movie.

[GremlinZilla89]

I used to adore this film. I still really, really love PARTS of it. But I have to agree with a lot of the complaints.

I'm totally torn on the semi-sequel aspect of it. I love how it's a throwback/love letter/sequel to the Donner films. I love the nostalgic feeling it gives off. Yet at the same time, it's a detriment. It's holding onto a tone and essence that I'm sure some of the newer audience just didn't click with.

I do agree with the guy in the video when he says this film is chocked full of awesome Superman imagery. It really is. The plane rescue, Supes hovering above the Earth, the mini-gun scene, the Atlas pose...it's all wonderfully Superman!

I was never a fan of Hackman's Lex. He was hot and cold for me. The only time I felt he was truly threatening was when he was talking to Supes through that special frequency. As much as I adore the original Superman movie, the Silver Age-ness of it hinders it's somewhat. Not it's fault, but an annoyance.
I felt Spacey was a more threatening presence. While the Hackman attributes were still there, the more ruthless Lex shined through many times. I like Spacey for the most part. His scheme is just so sadly redundant.

And god, was Lois written poorly. It's been said a million times....but damn! Where is the spunk? The spark? The determination? This Lois just felt like a bitter, callous, humorless bore going through the motions.

And yes, the deadbeat dad thing is unforgivable. It's just not written well. What is the timeline? Did Lois shack up with Richard right after the events of Superman 2? This is meant to be a sequel? And this follows the continuity of the theatrical Superman 2, the one where Supes gives the "forget me" kiss. Well, when Lois finds out her kid is super powerful, wouldn't the first thought be "When the HELL did I sleep with Superman?!! DID HE RAPE ME!"

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by GremlinZilla89

And yes, the deadbeat dad thing is unforgivable.

Just fyi… “deadbeat dad” is a term that identifies a male who has knowingly fathered a child and refuses to provide parental support (typically financial).

SR employs the (fairly familiar) Who’s Your Daddy? trope - wherein a character discovers that he has fathered a child (usually years ago). So no “deadbeat” applies.

Did Lois shack up with Richard right after the events of Superman 2? This is meant to be a sequel? And this follows the continuity of the theatrical Superman 2, the one where Supes gives the "forget me" kiss. Well, when Lois finds out her kid is super powerful, wouldn't the first thought be "When the HELL did I sleep with Superman?!! DID HE RAPE ME!"

If you ignore SII, then these questions don't arise.

[NolanDCU]

The current Birthright inspired Man of Steel film is the movie we SHOULD'VE received in 2006. Superman Returns was atrocious on virtually all levels. A Birthright inspired contemporary Superman origin / re-boot film in 2006 for modern audiences would've followed on the heels of Batman Begins quite nicely. WB should've never let Singer make this movie. I don't know what they were thinking, honestly.

[LL2K2]

Originally Posted by NolanDCU

The current Birthright inspired Man of Steel film is the movie we SHOULD'VE received in 2006. Superman Returns was atrocious on virtually all levels. A Birthright inspired contemporary Superman origin / re-boot film in 2006 for modern audiences would've followed on the heels of Batman Begins quite nicely. WB should've never let Singer make this movie. I don't know what they were thinking, honestly.

That he's an Oscar-caliber director? That he had a clearer vision of the character than any of the directors before him (Burton, McG, Abrams)? That he had already brought the X-Men into two successful films?

Honestly, some people's vitriol toward Singer and this movie is without explanation.

[NolanDCU]

Originally Posted by LL2K2

That he had a clearer vision of the character than any of the directors before him (Burton, McG, Abrams)?

LOL ... wut? A psuedo half sequel, half reboot, love letter remake of the 1978 film?

Yea, clear and precise vision there.

Originally Posted by LL2K2

That he had already brought the X-Men into two successful films?

First X-Men film was garbage. 2nd one was decent at best.

Originally Posted by LL2K2

some people's vitriol toward Singer and this movie is without explanation.

Well he presented a very weak, convoluted, stupid, boring, repetitive version of the character. And totally unforgivable a protagonist who is supposed to be masculine, but comes off very homosexual in execution. All emo and angst ridden. A movie about ex-bfs who have moved on ... not about how cool and exciting a Superman movie can be. Not about the inherent hope he represents for mankind.

The vitriol and hate towards this abomination of a boring SUPERHERO movie is totally justified. Hell, Superman Returns makes Ang Lee's HULK down right exciting in comparison.

A sequel to a movie made in 1981, for a 2006 audience? Sounds genius. [/end sarcasm]

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Well someones trying hard to make an impression.

[Excelsior.]

That he's an Oscar-caliber director?

W...wut? I don't dislike Singer at all. But w...wut?