By the way who was rumoured director in 2002? Just wondering. 'Cos I'm impressed with your longevity.
It did have all those things.....featured in the most boring, redundant way possible.
So...wait a sec...it's cool to see a man hanging on wires flying with scenery moving past behind him, but when they show Superman flying backward down a Metropolis street melting plummeting glass with his Heat Vision or outracing an explosion, doing a flip in midair and blowing out the fire coming toward the power/nuclear station it's "boring and redundant"?
I don't get that reasoning. The kinds of action seen in SUPERMAN RETURNS were things we haven't seen in ANY Superman movie to date.
Thanks to advances in modern technology, the film looks prettier than Superman: The Movie, and a continent replaces two rockets, but lets not kid ourselves, the transition from Superman The Movie to Returns was like VHS to DVD, effects wise.
If you mean that the effects stomped all over SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, than yes, you'd be correct.
The script itself was badly written, with the Clark/Lois interplay lacking any and all chemistry.
That's because she's not interested in Clark. She's looking through him.
The supporting cast....are you joking.
Not at all. Anyone who watched SUPERMAN RETURNS would come away with a good idea who the characters are. Perry, the gruff, businesslike reporter with a heart of gold, Jimmy, Clark's pal (Superman's pal was missing) and friend to Lois and Clark. Clark, the bumbling, ineffective male friend with a secret, and Superman, the kind-hearted, heroic, superpowered visitor from an other planet who gets his powers from the Earth's sun and has "alienation" issues sometimes because of the nature of his abilities and his duty. It's there as much as it ever was in any superhero film. Even Jor-El's nature could be gleaned from SUPERMAN RETURNS. And while Luthor didn't reach his full potential, the basics were there as much as they ever were in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE or any of the sequels.
Other than Richard, the supporting cast could have been nameless cardboard cutouts and would have came off the same as they did in the movie.
I disagree. But since we're on the subject ,since when weren't Perry/Jimmy, etc "cardboard" in Donner's movie, too? Lois only had a MODICUM of depth, and never very much. I'd argue Lois's character in SUPERMAN RETURNS was much deeper than it ever was in prior superhero movies.
And Lex's goons.....why does he have bimbo's and goons? It's not funny, it's not cute, it's not anything but annoying and detracts from the main villian of the story actually being considered a true villian.
It's not supposed to be funny or cute. It's supposed to be Lex Luthor hiring people to do his dirty work because he's ONLY A MAN.
Luthor in SUPERMAN RETURNS can easily be considered a true villain. The best of all time? No, but he does some pretty awful things in the movie. I can list them if you'd like.
Sent Superman off to Krypton believing it still existed (though this was later cut out)
Made an old woman believe he loved her so he could have her money when she died.
Abused Kitty.
Usurped Superman's technology for his own ends
Tried to kill billions of people.
Tortured and beat Superman, then left him to die.
Left Lois and Jason to die when the ship went down
What, do you want to see Lex Luthor go it alone...despite the fact that Luthor almost never does his own dirty work?
Again, the script itself was badly written, and resulted in a movie that tried so damn hard to be epic but came off like it was about a whole lot of nothing.
That's your opinion. I don't think this script is "bad" on any level. Could there have been a bit more depth and exploration of themes? Probably, but you can say that about almost ANY movie. The script itself wasn't "bad".
Yes the elements of the Kryptonian heritage where there, in the same manner in which they were in the Superman the Movie, which results in the Kents getting crapped on, once again. I hate this. The Kents are portrayed as backwood hicks in Donner's film and that seems to have carried over.
I wouldn't call them backwoods hicks. I mean, Martha was playing Scrabble. They're farmers. The Kents always have been portrayed as simple, good people. Nothing wrong with continuing that angle.
I'll agree on one thing. One of the issues I have with SUPERMAN RETURNS is that it never showed the Kents as being the force behind Clark's Superman persona. SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE did show this, at least to a point, and this is one of the better Post Crisis elements of the Superman mythology.
By potential, i dont mean action scenes.
Yeah, I'm not stupid. I know you don't mean "action". But please elaborate, what do you mean by "Superman's potential"?
I just cannot understand how a Superman fan can read stories like Superman for all seasons, Peace on earth, Whatever happened to the man of tomorow, Action comics #775, Kingdom Come, All star Superman and think SR was a good representation of Superman...its potential as a story, as the greatest superhero of all time.
I liked SUPERMAN FOR ALL SEASONS and PEACE ON EARTH. Their approach and tone would work much better for a Superman origin story, but there are smaller elements of that kind of stuff to be found in SUPERMAN RETURNS. Not sure why you're referencing KINGDOME COME as Superman abandons Earth for a horrible reason and then is basically Super-dictator the rest of the story until he realizes he was wrong. KINGDOM COME's tone and themes would be appropriate for a JLA film, not neccessarily a Superman one. ALL STAR SUPERMAN isn't that impressive to me. It's mostly "simplified Pre-Crisis Superman" meets "science fiction" like Donner's Superman, with a focus on the "hero" side of Superman and Clark as the "mask". An incredibly limiting and hard-to-swallow series, in my mind. I do like the issues it raises at time, but characterization and storywise, I haven't been too impressed.
And what's so great about ACTION COMICS #775? Ok, Superman isn't like "other heroes" and he holds himself to a higher standard, and he's a good person. So? Just because he doesn't refuse to kill someone in SUPERMAN RETURNS doesn't mean the movie lacked any of Superman's potential.
And talking about action scenes...
C`mon?!? Who are u kidding, Guard?The Plane sequence was the only action scene that was decent for a Superman movie of nowadays.
Excellent point. That plane sequence alone blows almost any other superhero movie's action scene out of the water in terms of WOW factor and scale.
The rest was like 2 minutes long and been done and filmed much better before.
Oh? Elaborate. Because I have yet to see Superman walking into a chaingun and taking a bullet off his eye in a prior Superman movie. Or lift a yacht.
Lifting a gian rock...Oh that was epic!
Yes. Yes it was. Glad you agree.
Oh wow, Superman used his Super breath and super speed, golly, didn't expect that to happen.
It's not about expecting it to happen, it's about the creative ways these things were utilized.
Damn, when Superman, ya know, grabbed that continent, instead of flying after rockets, just got my damn heart pounding due to the epic nature of lifting a rock instead of catching a rocket.....lol are you sh&tting me?
Anyone who didn't get a chill when he's soaking up the sun and diving down through the clouds doesn't get the character. There, I said it.
I get it, though, you prefer more kinetic action.
So I should be thrilled thta Superman used super strength, that should make a film for me?
No, but you can't realistically bash SUPERMAN RETURNS on it's use of his powers and abilities.
So when the new Trek comes out I should fangasm because Spock has pointy ears and says live long and prosper? Because thats what your tellling me. The only scene I will give Singer is the plane sequence, and he directly took that from Abrams script.
I didn't imply anything of the kind. And no, Singer didn't take the plane sequence directly from Abrams script. He added a shuttle, and he made it MUCH longer and more grandiose than Abrams ever intended for it to be. And btw, Abrams took it from the COMICS, so who cares if it's a borrowed idea? It's a comic book adaption, after all.
So dude named Perry was in the film, or was it Paul, along with some lil dork named Jimmy, or was it Timmy? and a gray haired lady with a farmhouse, didn't catch her name, and you were there, and you, and you, and a piece of cardboard, and Marlon Brando, and yadda yadda yadda......the film did a horrible job with the characters, including Superman. Every character came off as a big piece of wood and had the depth of drying paint.
And these characters ever had depth in Donner's film or the sequels? Or even in most comics?
I'm more pissed about the lack of character depth and how the characters were portrayed than action scenes!
And yet you still haven't elaborated.
Why does it make you laugh? At least in SR he didn't just go hide up north because he got smoked in a public opinion poll while the world went loco. Yeah, Lois died, but if that would've been any sort of motivation he would've left right after she got killed by The Joker in the story. Instead, he was just fed up that ol' Hornhead himself didn't get in trouble for committing revenge. He didn't have anyone to save in that book when he left...he was just bitter. I love Kingdom Come as much as the next geek, but seriously, glass houses and all that...because it would be more in character for Superman to leave for five years to potentially rescue people than to take his ball and go home to Santa's backyard while a nutball took over the mantle of Metropolis' "protector."
Agreed.
Brilliantly put.
