What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

[GremlinZilla89]

I still don't hate Superman Returns. I used to adore it for the unabashed love letter to Donner that it was, but over time the film has gotten stale. Stale in tone and and stale in story. It's so concerned with recapturing that magic of the first two films it forgets to have it's own identity, leaving the film feeling oddly cold and distant. It had moments, small moments of shining goodness. The action was very fun to watch and I loved Spacey as Lex, but Routh seemed lost on the shuffle of Lois and Lex. I think Lois had more dialogue than Clark and Supes combined. To make it worse she was just characterized without any heart or soul.
I wouldn't hate the "Superman with a son" angle if it was written with any sort of clarity. The rooftop scene with Lois worked, the only interaction with Lex and Supes worked, the airplane scene in still one of the best superhero moments in film history, the finale is rousing and well constructed and John Ottmans score is at times wonderful.

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON

^I think MOS paid homage a little more subtly than SR did though, I can understand some peoples frustrations with how much of STM SR used. I personally liked it, but for people wanting something new I think MOS did it just right.

But it was the whole Zod and co. vs Son of Jor-el story all over again.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

But it was the whole Zod and co. vs Son of Jor-el story all over again.

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.

[Joshua_B]

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.

[charl_huntress]

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

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Originally Posted by GremlinZilla89

I still don't hate Superman Returns. I used to adore it for the unabashed love letter to Donner that it was, but over time the film has gotten stale. Stale in tone and and stale in story. It's so concerned with recapturing that magic of the first two films it forgets to have it's own identity, leaving the film feeling oddly cold and distant. It had moments, small moments of shining goodness. The action was very fun to watch and I loved Spacey as Lex, but Routh seemed lost on the shuffle of Lois and Lex. I think Lois had more dialogue than Clark and Supes combined. To make it worse she was just characterized without any heart or soul.
I wouldn't hate the "Superman with a son" angle if it was written with any sort of clarity. The rooftop scene with Lois worked, the only interaction with Lex and Supes worked, the airplane scene in still one of the best superhero moments in film history, the finale is rousing and well constructed and John Ottmans score is at times wonderful.

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 Senator Pleasury

But it was the whole Zod and co. vs Son of Jor-el story all over again.

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.

[GremlinZilla89]

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON

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.

It tries to have tones of heart, but it's too busy trying to straight up feel like a Donner film the whole thing ends up feeling largely hollow and like an expensive copycat.

But, I'm glad you find the heart in it.

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by Dr.

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

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

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

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

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.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Well, I liked MOS's Lois. But that kiss at the end was kind of gratuitous.

It's okay for a Superman movie to have gratuitous violence and kissing of Lois Lane. That's what ALL Superman movies should have. The successful ones have it in loads.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

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.

That's the problem. It's so different it doesn't make sense for a Superman story. It especially doesn't make sense if Singer was actually trying to follow the Donner films, which he said he really wasn't. He just used it as a template to tell some weird story that didn't actually fit.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

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.

While that may be innovative that is not a story that's going to excite anyone about Superman's Return after a 20 year wait.

At this point, I been having this same debate for 6 years on SHH. So we are not going to agree and I'm okay with that. I actually don't' even remember SR anymore. I've only seen it once and will never see it again. I have watched MOS at least 20 times now. That to me proves which is the better film. Gratuitous kissing of Lois Lane or not.... Hell I actually thought it was a smart choice to have them kiss at that time. It was a perfect even though destruction was everyone...lol

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

It's okay for a Superman movie to have gratuitous violence and kissing of Lois Lane. That's what ALL Superman movies should have. The successful ones have it in loads.

But even in STM they had a date before kissing. And even so, they didn't get to kiss.

In MOS the kiss felt like that Rachel Dawes-Bruce Wayne kiss. Out of the blue, because executives apparently asked for one.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

That's the problem. It's so different it doesn't make sense for a Superman story. It especially doesn't make sense if Singer was actually trying to follow the Donner films, which he said he really wasn't. He just used it as a template to tell some weird story that didn't actually fit.

SR follows STM and SII. Vaguley because it doesn't refer to absolutely everything that happened there (specially SII).

Now, how doesn't it make sense?

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

While that may be innovative that is not a story that's going to excite anyone about Superman's Return after a 20 year wait.

That's personal opinion. A superhero movie's romance that's about forgiveness and huge mistakes that don't have a solution sounds immediately more adult and mature than the average boy-meets-girl romance we get in every superhero movie.

Now, I'm discussing the movie. Making a sequel after 26 years is certainly a huge risk.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

At this point, I been having this same debate for 6 years on SHH. So we are not going to agree and I'm okay with that. I actually don't' even remember SR anymore. I've only seen it once and will never see it again. I have watched MOS at least 20 times now. That to me proves which is the better film. Gratuitous kissing of Lois Lane or not.... Hell I actually thought it was a smart choice to have them kiss at that time. It was a perfect even though destruction was everyone...lol

The kiss came out of nowhere. Wasn't any different than that last minute kiss in Batman Begins or Thor. A shame since that was the most interesting Lois ever shown and one of the most interesting love interests in years in the genre.

And well, if you saw SR once, then I can't expect you to remember everything. But at least see it twice, just to make sure you dislike it.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

But even in STM they had a date before kissing. And even so, they didn't get to kiss.

In MOS the kiss felt like that Rachel Dawes-Bruce Wayne kiss. Out of the blue, because executives apparently asked for one.

That kiss did not feel that way to me, but whatever the case may be...it worked in spades. Not everyone likes it, but those who do LOVE it. I am on the side of those who LOVED it. It was a highlight of the film for me and EVERY single women I have spoken to feels the same way.

I have always said that a good Superman film HAS to have a good Lois/Supes relationship because men are not the only ones who like Superman and women want to see him kiss Lois. We have our needs too

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

SR follows STM and SII. Vaguley because it doesn't refer to absolutely everything that happened there (specially SII).

Now, how doesn't it make sense?

It doesn't follow the story because he PICKED which elements he wanted to keep instead of following the story. Singer said in some interview that this is what he did. He didn't feel he had to follow it exactly and that he could take license with certain things, or change them completely. If that was the case, why not just make your own movie? I am still perplexed by what he even thought he was achieving with the character, and chalk it up to he does not really know Superman as a character, but identifies with certain elements of him that HE enjoys and then he made this movie wanting to highlight just those elements.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

That's personal opinion. A superhero movie's romance that's about forgiveness and huge mistakes that don't have a solution sounds immediately more adult and mature than the average boy-meets-girl romance we get in every superhero movie. Now, I'm discussing the movie. Making a sequel after 26 years is certainly a huge risk.

And now we have MOS to wash that away because it was a BAD risk and it cost him.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

The kiss came out of nowhere. Wasn't any different than that last minute kiss in Batman Begins or Thor. A shame since that was the most interesting Lois ever shown and one of the most interesting love interests in years in the genre.

And well, if you saw SR once, then I can't expect you to remember everything. But at least see it twice, just to make sure you dislike it.

That kiss did not come out of no where. He had been wanting to kiss her and she him. They kept showing that during the whole movie with the long yearning looks and hand holding.

While it's good to be unique in some things this is not one of those instances. Sometimes you need the tropes. They aren't bad because everyone else does them too.

No, I will NEVER watch SR again. I already know I don't like it. I will watch Superman: Brainiac Attacks before I watch SR again. I don't need to rewatch it to know I'm not going to change my mind.

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

That kiss did not feel that way to me, but whatever the case may be...it worked in spades. Not everyone likes it, but those who do LOVE it. I am on the side of those who LOVED it. It was a highlight of the film for me and EVERY single women I have spoken to feels the same way.

I have always said that a good Superman film HAS to have a good Lois/Supes relationship because men are not the only ones who like Superman and women want to see him kiss Lois. We have our needs too

Ah yes, well girls lust after the actor. That's hardly excuse enough. I'm talking strictly narrative.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

It doesn't follow the story because he PICKED which elements he wanted to keep instead of following the story. Singer said in some interview that this is what he did. He didn't feel he had to follow it exactly and that he could take license with certain things, or change them completely. If that was the case, why not just make your own movie? I am still perplexed by what he even thought he was achieving with the character, and chalk it up to he does not really know Superman as a character, but identifies with certain elements of him that HE enjoys and then he made this movie wanting to highlight just those elements.

Well, you explained to me the very same ting I explained you. And EVERY director, naturally, chooses the elements that they like the most about a certain character. This is old news.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

And now we have MOS to wash that away because it was a BAD risk and it cost him.

I don't see much washing. 59% of good reviews and a sequel where they thought Batman was necessary to boost things.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

While it's good to be unique in some things this is not one of those instances. Sometimes you need the tropes. They aren't bad because everyone else does them too.

They are bad exactly because of that. Specially when every single superhero movie does it almost without a variation. That's why we barely have any love interest that has any flesh on it.

MOS did great in that sense. Then the kiss reminded us that no matter how good the character is portrayed, this is formula.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

No, I will NEVER watch SR again. I already know I don't like it. I will watch Superman: Brainiac Attacks before I watch SR again. I don't need to rewatch it to know I'm not going to change my mind.

May I ask when did you see SR?

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Ah yes, well girls desire the actor. That's hardly excuse enough. I'm talking strictly narrative.

It was part of the narrative. It was the narrative that Supes like Lois and she likes him. That's why they kissed. It was part of the narrative this story is telling. They actually like each other. He desires her. She desires him. They kissed because they desired each other. The film clearly shows this through out so how is it NOT part of the narrative?

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Well, you explained to me the very same ting I explained you. And EVERY director, naturally, chooses the elements that they like the most about a certain character. This is old news.

Right. My point. Why use the Donner template at all if that was not the story you were going to tell. The Donner template is old...great...but old. Why use that blue print to tell a story that doesn't fit. To me it's like trying to stuff an elephant inside a car. You have a grandiose story that is full of meaning and subtly, yet you use a 30 year movie's blue print to do so. I just don't understand that choice.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

I don't see much washing. 59% of good reviews and a sequel where they thought Batman was necessary to boost things.

I actually think WB think they have some sort of plan. Knowing this company, that actually makes me more concerned. However, I think the plan is: Supes movie. Supes/Bat movie. JL movie. Or something like that. I also think this may have been the plan all along. I don't think this was a design to boost things because they thought they failed with MOS. And just to be clear, I don't think MOS failed at all because it got bad review. Comic book movies usually get bad reviews.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

They are bad exactly because of that. Specially when every single superhero movie does it almost without a variation. That's why we barely have any love interest that has any flesh on it.

Okay. I get you want a deep and complicated comic movie, but you also see how making a deep and complicated Superman movie after a 20+ year wait is probably not the best idea. Also, I don't really need a deep and complicated Superman story. You may to enjoy that, but I don't. It's Superman! I want to see him fight things, punch people into trains, have airborne fights. I want to see him kiss Lois. I don't need it to be that damn complicated. That is what elseworld comics are for.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

MOS did great in that sense. Then the kiss reminded us that no matter how good the character is portrayed, this is formula.

It worked though. So...

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

May I ask when did you see SR?

In the theaters. I left unhappy. I do own a copy. I bought the collectors set which has all the movies. I just don't like the movie. It has nothing in it I want to see. Like I said, I'd watch Brianiac attacks before I watch SR. That is equally bad, but it at least it's got some of the things I like. While SR has nothing I like. No fights, no good Lois/Supes, no fights...no good Lois/Supes...no fights. You get the picture right?

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

It was part of the narrative. It was the narrative that Supes like Lois and she likes him. That's why they kissed. It was part of the narrative this story is telling. They actually like each other. He desires her. She desires him. They kissed because they desired each other. The film clearly shows this through out so how is it NOT part of the narrative?

No, it wasn't part of it. There's nothing that suggests they have a further interest in each other. Then, suddenly, they're kissing. From that there's nothing but to assume they liked each other, but it came out of the clear blue.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

Right. My point. Why use the Donner template at all if that was not the story you were going to tell. The Donner template is old...great...but old. Why use that blue print to tell a story that doesn't fit. To me it's like trying to stuff an elephant inside a car. You have a grandiose story that is full of meaning and subtly, yet you use a 30 year movie's blue print to do so. I just don't understand that choice.

It was the story Singer was going to tell. Fatherhood, as it was set in STM (and Donner's SII with Jor-el) was picked up in SR, also the always difficult relationship between Lois and Superman. Singer picked that up directly from Donner version, because it allowed him to show a different kind of relationship between Clark and Lois and Superman and Luthor. Those are relationships with a background because he started from Donner's movies.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

I actually think WB think they have some sort of plan. Knowing this company, that actually makes me more concerned. However, I think the plan is: Supes movie. Supes/Bat movie. JL movie. Or something like that. I also think this may have been the plan all along. I don't think this was a design to boost things because they thought they failed with MOS. And just to be clear, I don't think MOS failed at all because it got bad review. Comic book movies usually get bad reviews.

WB certainly have plans. Adding Batman, DC current most popular character, to boost things because apparently this Superman doesn't convince them to be the only start in his own sequel. If they didn't think so, they would have had a sequel like any other superhero; where they are the stars of their own movies.

Now if you pay attention to RT, many superhero movies get 80+ % of good reviews. MOS' rating was outstandingly low.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

Okay. I get you want a deep and complicated comic movie, but you also see how making a deep and complicated Superman movie after a 20+ year wait is probably not the best idea. Also, I don't really need a deep and complicated Superman story. You may to enjoy that, but I don't. It's Superman! I want to see him fight things, punch people into trains, have airborne fights. I want to see him kiss Lois. I don't need it to be that damn complicated. That is what elseworld comics are for.

I agree, as I said, making a sequel to Donner movies was not a good idea in terms of selling the movie. That doesn't take anything from what I've said about the movie itself.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

It worked though. So...

Oh, it did work. It did remind people this was the same formula as usual.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

In the theaters. I left unhappy. I do own a copy. I bought the collectors set which has all the movies. I just don't like the movie. It has nothing in it I want to see. Like I said, I'd watch Brianiac attacks before I watch SR. That is equally bad, but it at least it's got some of the things I like. While SR has nothing I like. No fights, no good Lois/Supes, no fights...no good Lois/Supes...no fights. You get the picture right?

I get that you're discussing about a movie you saw once 7 years ago. Sure, you remember the feeling you were left with, but not any further detail.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

No, it wasn't part of it. There's nothing that suggests they have a further interest in each other. Then, suddenly, they're kissing. From that there's nothing but to assume they liked each other, but it came out of the clear blue.

I'm not sure if we were watching the same movie if you didn't see they did have feelings for each other. I don't even know how you couldn't see that. It was all over the place. I could point out 4 instances off the top of my head.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

It was the story Singer was going to tell. Fatherhood, as it was set in STM (and Donner's SII with Jor-el) was picked up in SR, also the always difficult relationship between Lois and Superman. Singer picked that up directly from Donner version, because it allowed him to show a different kind of relationship between Clark and Lois and Superman and Luthor. Those are relationships with a background because he started from Donner's movies.

Fine that's what he wanted to do. It did not work. I feel he would have been better off just telling whatever story he wanted to tell with a new format. It did not make sense he would use the Donner blue-print because those movies were fun and light. How do you tell a deep story on a foundation that's not meant to tell that sort of story to begin with? Again for me that's the most confusing part of his decision to go in the direction he did. It didn't make sense to me 7 years ago, and it still doesn't make sense to me today.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

WB certainly have plans. Adding Batman, DC current most popular character, to boost things because apparently this Superman doesn't convince them to be the only start in his own sequel. If they didn't think so, they would have had a sequel like any other superhero; where they are the stars of their own movies.Now if you pay attention to RT, many superhero movies get 80+ % n of good reviews. MOS' rating was outstandingly low.

What does that matter? It got a sequel. It's moving forward. Comic book movies general don't get great reviews. I'm not surprised and don't even think that it's relevant. As for WB's plans...le sigh. I don't even care because they have made so many bad choices for so many years. I have no faith in any of their plans. I have a wait and see approach for everything concerning them.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

I agree, as I said, making a sequel to Donner movies was not a good idea in terms of selling the movie. That doesn't take anything from what I've said about the movie itself.

This is where the simple matter of taste comes into play. You thought it was a good movie for all the reasons I thought it was a bad movie. You like what I hated. Again...been having this debate for 7 years. I think I'm just having it now because I'm a bit bored, and find your views interesting. However, you will not make me think it's a good movie, and I don't want to try and make you think it's a bad movie. I just did not like it, will never like it, and don't want to see it again to be reminded of why I didn't like it in the first place.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Oh, it did work. It did remind people this was the same formula as usual.

I simply saw it as hot kiss that was long overdue. My fangirl cried with joy and I don't care if it was formula. It WORKED.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

I get that you're discussing about a movie you saw once 7 years ago. Sure, you remember the feeling you were left with, but not any further detail.

I know what elements destroyed the movie for me because I have been talking about them for seven years. I am well versed on what those elements are. I don't need to see it again to be reminded. I often find myself talking about again and again...like we are doing now...lol If you got back in this thread...I'm on page 2...lol. And that was 2 years ago, yet here I am talking about it again...lol

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Originally Posted by GremlinZilla89

It tries to have tones of heart, but it's too busy trying to straight up feel like a Donner film the whole thing ends up feeling largely hollow and like an expensive copycat.

But, I'm glad you find the heart in it.

Again I cant agree, as its the heart and emotion of the story that keeps me coming back to watch the movie 7 years later. The whole movies theme is alienation, so there is bound to be emotional scenes for Superman in the movie and we get plenty of that. Its other things that were the problem IMO.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

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.

But with SR they used exact lines, story beats and character moments from STM. MOS didnt resort to that, so I can see why people are more accepting of that.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

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.

Well two different interpretations of the same character ARE going to have similarities, but for me MOS Zod was different enough from Stamp Zod to make things interesting and not feel like a re-tread.

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

I'm not sure if we were watching the same movie if you didn't see they did have feelings for each other. I don't even know how you couldn't see that. It was all over the place. I could point out 4 instances off the top of my head.

I remember them in a subject-journalist relationship. And then trying to stop an alien invasion. Never saw a thing about feelings for each other until the kiss came. Now I just saw the movie twice. Did something else happen in between? Or was it a matter of 'this is love interest, he must kiss her at one point'?

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

Fine that's what he wanted to do. It did not work. I feel he would have been better off just telling whatever story he wanted to tell with a new format. It did not make sense he would use the Donner blue-print because those movies were fun and light. How do you tell a deep story on a foundation that's not meant to tell that sort of story to begin with? Again for me that's the most confusing part of his decision to go in the direction he did. It didn't make sense to me 7 years ago, and it still doesn't make sense to me today.

Well, one thing that's needed to see SR is being familiar to Donner movies. For the better or the worse.

Now, one thing Donner didn't do right was sometimes avoiding the consequence of Superman's actions. Like when he turned back time or have Lois the amnesia kiss. The easy way out. Singer did that right in his movie. Superman's actions had then consequences. I see, therefore, improvement and a reason why it was good. Snyder also took this way with his take on Superman.

And Superman showed how lonely he feels in this planet in SR, which is another thing I'm glad Snyder kept for MOS.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

What does that matter? It got a sequel. It's moving forward. Comic book movies general don't get great reviews. I'm not surprised and don't even think that it's relevant. As for WB's plans...le sigh. I don't even care because they have made so many bad choices for so many years. I have no faith in any of their plans. I have a wait and see approach for everything concerning them.

There are a lot of superhero movies with good reviews; Dark Knight, Spider Man 2, Iron Man, The Avengers, Spider Man, Dark Knight Rises, X Men: First Class, X Men 2, Hellboy 2, Batman Begins, X Men, Hellboy, Captain America, Sin City, Thor and, yes, Superman Returns.

Not that it's relevant (I myself don't care for reviews), but you said that MOS had "washed [SR] away." And I see that even when they did better financially, it was not all a bed of roses.

Anyways, I don't know whether your stance on the sequel is "What does that matter? It got a sequel" or "I have no faith in any of their plans."

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

This is where the simple matter of taste comes into play. You thought it was a good movie for all the reasons I thought it was a bad movie. You like what I hated. Again...been having this debate for 7 years. I think I'm just having it now because I'm a bit bored, and find your views interesting. However, you will not make me think it's a good movie, and I don't want to try and make you think it's a bad movie. I just did not like it, will never like it, and don't want to see it again to be reminded of why I didn't like it in the first place.

I think matter of taste starts when we registered ourselves in this forum. I'm far from wanting you to like SR, just to have a discussion that can go further the memories from 7 years ago.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

I simply saw it as hot kiss that was long overdue. My fangirl cried with joy and I don't care if it was formula. It WORKED.

It worked for people who just wanted to see that kiss, sure. But narratively?

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

I know what elements destroyed the movie for me because I have been talking about them for seven years. I am well versed on what those elements are. I don't need to see it again to be reminded. I often find myself talking about again and again...like we are doing now...lol If you got back in this thread...I'm on page 2...lol. And that was 2 years ago, yet here I am talking about it again...lol

Well, everyone's free to keep discussing or not. My point is if you're discussing about what happens in the movie or what you remember from one viewing seven years ago.



************************************************** **

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON

But with SR they used exact lines, story beats and character moments from STM. MOS didnt resort to that, so I can see why people are more accepting of that.

I don't have MOS here to check it out, but in Krypton there were dialogues involving Jor-el that were very very similar to those of STM with Marlon Brando. And of course they also used the "you're here for a reason" for Jonathan Kent.

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON

Well two different interpretations of the same character ARE going to have similarities, but for me MOS Zod was different enough from Stamp Zod to make things interesting and not feel like a re-tread.

Superman's origin doesn't have to include Zod or Phantom Zone. But they decided to go same way as STM-SII. That's not saying anything wrong abour MOS, but I find funny the selectivity of critizicing one movie for something and not the other one. I mean, at the very least SR was a sequel to those movies. Of course it was going to be similar.

That doesn't mean that I myself wasn't annoyed at one point when they decided to keep STM dialogues just for the sake of it.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

I remember them in a subject-journalist relationship. And then trying to stop an alien invasion. Never saw a thing about feelings for each other until the kiss came. Now I just saw the movie twice. Did something else happen in between? Or was it a matter of 'this is love interest, he must kiss her at one point'?

You need to watch the movie again. I can't even describe what you missed if you didn't see it in the first place. Just go watch it again and pay attention to every time Lois and Superman are together

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Well, one thing that's needed to see SR is being familiar to Donner movies. For the better or the worse.

Now, one thing Donner didn't do right was sometimes avoiding the consequence of Superman's actions. Like when he turned back time or have Lois the amnesia kiss. The easy way out. Singer did that right in his movie. Superman's actions had then consequences. I see, therefore, improvement and a reason why it was good. Snyder also took this way with his take on Superman.

And Superman showed how lonely he feels in this planet in SR, which is another thing I'm glad Snyder kept for MOS.

I am very familiar with the Donnerverse and pretty much all of Superman's lore. I've been a dedicated fan for over 30 years. I know my Superman. But rather you realize it or not, you just confirmed why the Donner template was a bad blue print for Singer. Donner KNEW better. He knew not to give Superman some huge emotional problem or drama he couldn't overcome by the end of the movie, so everyone in the audience left with a smile. It didn't matter how ridiculous, but Superman has to solve the problem. Singer didn't even plan on doing this, so again why use that template? Just tell your own damn story with a new format.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

There are a lot of superhero movies with good reviews; Dark Knight, Spider Man 2, Iron Man, The Avengers, Spider Man, Dark Knight Rises, X Men: First Class, X Men 2, Hellboy 2, Batman Begins, X Men, Hellboy, Captain America, Sin City, Thor and, yes, Superman Returns.

Not that it's relevant (I myself don't care for reviews), but you said that MOS had "washed [SR] away." And I see that even when they did better financially, it was not all a bed of roses.

Anyways, I don't know whether your stance on the sequel is "What does that matter? It got a sequel" or "I have no faith in any of their plans."

MOS washed SR away because it rebooted the franchise. As for me, MOS got a sequel, but I still have no faith in WB, so I will wait and see. I don't trust them to put out good CBM product (Nolan's Batman aside). I was actually surprised I liked MOS as much as a did. I don't like everything about it, but it's definitely on the tops for Superman movies.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

I think matter of taste starts when we registered ourselves in this forum. I'm far from wanting you to like SR, just to have a discussion that can go further the memories from 7 years ago.

For some reason I just always come back to read why people like this movie. I think it's garbage, so I am always curious why people say they like it.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

It worked for people who just wanted to see that kiss, sure. But narratively?

Like a I said, watch the movie again. I don't even know how you missed it...lol. Maybe you're young or something...idk. It's there though. The kiss is part of the narrative, but you didn't see it, so you need to watch the movie again. Everyone else saw it.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Well, everyone's free to keep discussing or not. My point is if you're discussing about what happens in the movie or what you remember from one viewing seven years ago.

One viewing was enough. After that I had a solid two years of debating how bad it was right here on these boards...and I'm still at it. I have a lot antipathy for this movie because I waited 20 years for Superman to return and then got this garbage. You know if you go back in this thread I posted a link to an article Singer gave a few years back where he admits he made mistakes with SR. He realizes now what he did wrong.

[Joshua_B]

Aside from it being one huge rehash with very little originality, my main problem with "Superman Returns" is how they introduced Lois' son Jason. I'm not against Superman having a kid, but the way it happened goes all the way back to him and Lois shacking up in "Superman II" (a scene which even Margot Kidder says was wrong in retrospect). Not only is he conceived out of marriage, but according to Singer's "vague history", Superman just abandons Lois (and by extension, Jason) without a single word? Some will say, "maybe he didn't know", but how would that be possible for a man who can literally hear everything? Throw in the creepy "stalker by the window" scene, and it turns the Man of Steel into the most lazy, irresponsible parent on the planet.

If a future film has Superman as father to another child, I hope they do it the right way, because he's meant to be a symbol of all the right choices, none of the wrong ones.

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

You need to watch the movie again. I can't even describe what you missed if you didn't see it in the first place. Just go watch it again and pay attention to every time Lois and Superman are together

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

Like a I said, watch the movie again. I don't even know how you missed it...lol. Maybe you're young or something...idk. It's there though. The kiss is part of the narrative, but you didn't see it, so you need to watch the movie again. Everyone else saw it.

So... you totally get why it's necessary to re-watch a movie if you want to discuss properly about it.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

I am very familiar with the Donnerverse and pretty much all of Superman's lore. I've been a dedicated fan for over 30 years. I know my Superman. But rather you realize it or not, you just confirmed why the Donner template was a bad blue print for Singer. Donner KNEW better. He knew not to give Superman some huge emotional problem or drama he couldn't overcome by the end of the movie, so everyone in the audience left with a smile. It didn't matter how ridiculous, but Superman has to solve the problem. Singer didn't even plan on doing this, so again why use that template? Just tell your own damn story with a new format.

Donner did give Superman some huge emotional problem and drama. The only way Superman could overcome them was some deus ex machina kind of last minute twist. Donner did not know better about how to solve a big conundrum, he had created himself. That's why he would conjure up an easy way out. Try and do that today in a movie and you'll get some huge backlash.

Singer gave Superman the same kind of situation - feeling lonely, having an impossible love -but this time thee was no easy way out. I don't get your "Singer didn't even plan on doing this"? Who says so? On what basis?

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

MOS washed SR away because it rebooted the franchise. As for me, MOS got a sequel, but I still have no faith in WB, so I will wait and see. I don't trust them to put out good CBM product (Nolan's Batman aside). I was actually surprised I liked MOS as much as a did. I don't like everything about it, but it's definitely on the tops for Superman movies.

A reboot is not enough to wash things away. His critical reception was pretty poor, the fanbase is divided and they felt the sequel needed more than just Superman to work.

Now, MOS had many good things, but suicidal Pa Kent and Superman throwing a giant spaceship over a populated city are as questionable as Superman having a child or spying on Lois.

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

One viewing was enough. After that I had a solid two years of debating how bad it was right here on these boards...and I'm still at it. I have a lot antipathy for this movie because I waited 20 years for Superman to return and then got this garbage. You know if you go back in this thread I posted a link to an article Singer gave a few years back where he admits he made mistakes with SR. He realizes now what he did wrong.

I myself have gripes with SR: too many core plot point not well explained (when did Superman and Lois conceived Jason, why exactly did Superman not say good-bye), too many STM duplicated dialogue, why the Lois-Clark relationship hasn't changed one bit (even more, they feel even more distant than in Donner moves). But I can tell those and why the good things outshine the bad ones because I have seen the movie enough to tell.


*****************************************

Originally Posted by Joshua_B

Aside from it being one huge rehash with very little originality,

Well, unless you've seen Superman movies before where Superman has a son, he goes to find Krypton's remains for 6 years, Lois has moved on and Luthor can create his own continent, I'd say you're wrong about the originality in SR.

Originally Posted by Joshua_B

my main problem with "Superman Returns" is how they introduced Lois' son Jason. I'm not against Superman having a kid, but the way it happened goes all the way back to him and Lois shacking up in "Superman II" (a scene which even Margot Kidder says was wrong in retrospect).

Well, it' not clear when Jason was conceived. It's never explained in the movie that it happened during SII.

Originally Posted by Joshua_B

Not only is he conceived out of marriage,

I... I am sorry?

How is that... any wrong or reprehensible? I mean, after 1970?

Originally Posted by Joshua_B

but according to Singer's "vague history", Superman just abandons Lois (and by extension, Jason) without a single word?

Superman didn't abandon Jason as he didn't know he existed. In fact, Lois herself didn't know about Jason, she thinks he's Richard's son.

That said, yes. It is explained in the movie he didn't say good-bye to Lois because if he had done it, he wouldn't have been able to leave. I think that was completely unnecessary. The mere fact of Superman having to leave was enough to have Lois angry at him. The whole inability to say good-bye was just a bad choice.

Originally Posted by Joshua_B

Some will say, "maybe he didn't know", but how would that be possible for a man who can literally hear everything?

Superman doesn't hear everything unless he's using that super-power.

Originally Posted by Joshua_B

Throw in the creepy "stalker by the window" scene, and it turns the Man of Steel into the most lazy, irresponsible parent on the planet.

If you knew the definition of stalker, you'd know Superman wasn't one. Even less a creepy one. Stalking implies intimidation and an obsessive behaviour. Superman did it once and not in order to intimidate Lois.

And as soon as he found out he was Jason's parent, he went to Lois's house and talked to him and told Lois he was always going to be around to protect them. When you don't know you're a father it's hard to be an exemplary father.

Originally Posted by Joshua_B

If a future film has Superman as father to another child, I hope they do it the right way, because he's meant to be a symbol of all the right choices, none of the wrong ones.

Not anymore. Much like in Man of Steel, Superman is fallible and not the 100% perfect role model. That's why he quit his mission for a girl in SII, he disobeys Jor-el's mandates in STM and he leaves earth in SR.

What's outstanding in him is not that he does everything right, but that he tries his as much as he can to achieve that.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

So... you totally get why it's necessary to re-watch a movie if you want to discuss properly about it.

This is not a case of me needing to re-watch because I missed something. There are just certain aspects of the movie I do not like. Re-watching it isn't going to change those parts, or make me see them in a new light. I'm suggesting you rewatch MOS because you missed something that was clearly meant to be seen.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Donner did give Superman some huge emotional problem and drama. The only way Superman could overcome them was some deus ex machina kind of last minute twist. Donner did not know better about how to solve a big conundrum, he had created himself. That's why he would conjure up an easy way out. Try and do that today in a movie and you'll get some huge backlash.

CBMs regularly find easy ways out of problems. That hasn't changed. Look at Avengers. What was the trick to closing the hole in the sky? It was an easy fix solved by using the scepter. There's nothing complicated about it. Donner knew this, whereas Singer did not. So again, why use the Donner template? That was the wrong foundation for that type of story to begin with.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Singer gave Superman the same kind of situation - feeling lonely, having an impossible love -but this time thee was no easy way out. I don't get your "Singer didn't even plan on doing this"? Who says so? On what basis?

If he was going to put in that sort of emotional arc then he should have solved it. He had no intention of doing that. At the end everything is depressing. Superman doesn't get the girl...nor his kid. Yeah, it was a real life situation, but who in the HELL gives Superman a real life situation like that? It was just asinine really.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

A reboot is not enough to wash things away. His critical reception was pretty poor, the fanbase is divided and they felt the sequel needed more than just Superman to work.

A reboot is the definition of washing something away. I don't even know what you think it is if you can't see that. Also, I was here after SR was released. It was a mad house, and the fan base was truly divided. There were fights and long, long debates about the movie. People were divided into 'lovers' and 'haters'. MOS didn't cause anything like that. Not everyone loves it, or loves everything single thing about, and yes there are some who hate it for their own reasons, but there is not the same sort of division like there was after SR was released. That is for sure!

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Now, MOS had many good things, but suicidal Pa Kent and Superman throwing a giant spaceship over a populated city are as questionable as Superman having a child or spying on Lois.

I won't get into the "MOS did some of the same things SR did" debate. That's not the debate here. There is a thread for which movie is better and why. However, those things you mentioned are not even comparable...not by a long shot because things like that happen frequently in the comics.

Again, I don't care you like the movie. I just didn't. Nothing is going to change that.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Joshua_B

Aside from it being one huge rehash with very little originality, my main problem with "Superman Returns" is how they introduced Lois' son Jason. I'm not against Superman having a kid, but the way it happened goes all the way back to him and Lois shacking up in "Superman II" (a scene which even Margot Kidder says was wrong in retrospect). Not only is he conceived out of marriage, but according to Singer's "vague history", Superman just abandons Lois (and by extension, Jason) without a single word? Some will say, "maybe he didn't know", but how would that be possible for a man who can literally hear everything? Throw in the creepy "stalker by the window" scene, and it turns the Man of Steel into the most lazy, irresponsible parent on the planet.

If a future film has Superman as father to another child, I hope they do it the right way.

All this...and especially the bolded part.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by Joshua_B

...the way it happened goes all the way back to him and Lois shacking up in "Superman II"...

Problematic - since the SII tryst occurred in ~1978 and Jason is 5 or 6 in 2006. If a viewer had not seen SII (and it’s not a prerequisite) then they’d simply assume that Supes and Lois got together (at least once) just prior to his departure. And that’s all one needs to know.

Not only is he conceived out of marriage...

This is a fairly puritanical perspective. If sex out of wedlock grates your cheese then there’s probably a great deal about modern society and pop culture that you dislike.

...Superman just abandons Lois (and by extension, Jason)...

That Supes left without saying good-bye to Lois is a significant plot element that’s revisited and (finally) redressed during the course of the film. But there is no “abandons” Jason “by extension.” Supes entire arc is about finding/reconnecting to family. And he ultimately finds this by learning of his son’s existence. He would not - and does not - abandon the very thing he was looking for. The discovery of an unknown child (for obvious reasons, this usually happens to men ) is a reasonably common narrative device. TV Tropes calls it Who’s Your Daddy? This can play out in a number of ways. But if the “new father” is a good/sympathetic character, he’ll typically want to develop a relationship with (or otherwise support) his newfound child. And this was conveyed at the conclusion of SR.

[The Guard]

One thing I love about SUPERMAN RETURNS is that Superman doesn't actually try to steal Lois. When he realizes he's more or less missed out on his chance at happiness, instead of sulking about it, he more or less immediately throws himself into his "mission" again.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Originally Posted by Dr.

Problematic - since the SII tryst occurred in ~1978 and Jason is 5 or 6 in 2006. If a viewer had not seen SII (and it’s not a prerequisite) then they’d simply assume that Supes and Lois got together (at least once) just prior to his departure. And that’s all one needs to know.

This is a fairly puritanical perspective. If sex out of wedlock grates your cheese then there’s probably a great deal about modern society and pop culture that you dislike.

That Supes left without saying good-bye to Lois is a significant plot element that’s revisited and (finally) redressed during the course of the film. But there is no “abandons” Jason “by extension.” Supes entire arc is about finding/reconnecting to family. And he ultimately finds this by learning of his son’s existence. He would not - and does not - abandon the very thing he was looking for. The discovery of an unknown child (for obvious reasons, this usually happens to men ) is a reasonably common narrative device. TV Tropes calls it Who’s Your Daddy? This can play out in a number of ways. But if the “new father” is a good/sympathetic character, he’ll typically want to develop a relationship with (or otherwise support) his newfound child. And this was conveyed at the conclusion of [I]SR[/I].

Agreed, how could Superman abandon Jason when he doesnt even know about him, this complaint really grates on me. And he learns throughout the movie that leaving without saying goodbye hurt more people than he realised and it has ramifications not just on his life but other peoples as well. By the end of SR he is a different Superman in a totally different place, he makes sure he says goodbye to Lois when leaving the plane, to correct his earlier mistake, as he doesnt think he is coming back.

Originally Posted by The Guard

One thing I love about SUPERMAN RETURNS is that Superman doesn't actually try to steal Lois. When he realizes he's more or less missed out on his chance at happiness, instead of sulking about it, he more or less immediately throws himself into his "mission" again.

Agreed, he goes back to saving people and you can see the joy this brings him throughout the movie, its the only happiness he gets in the movie until Jason comes along and he realises he is not alone anymore.