Superman Returns Official Superman Returns Discussion

[Tyrone Parker]

Routh would have been great in a true reboot.

Routh is not believable as Superman. He doesn't have a manly look, hes too pretty boy model.

 

[LL2K2]

Routh is not believable as Superman. He doesn't have a manly look, hes too pretty boy model.

Have you seen his recent pics? Or even the series "Partners"? He's matured a lot in the last few years.

I'll take him over Cavill *and* the Smallville guy any day, thank you.

 

[Drizzle]

I watched Superman Returns today for the first time in at least five years. I liked it the first time I saw it in theaters, but I can't seem to remember why. I think it was just the experience of seeing Superman on the big screen, since the Christopher Reeve films all came out before I was born. But still, I wasn't blown away by it. After some repeat viewings on DVD, I started to see all the flaws. I don't hate it, and combined with Superman and Superman II, they actually make for a decent trilogy, but it still deserved the backlash it got. Here's what I find wrong with the movie:

1. The cast brings absolutely nothing to the film. Brandon Routh looked the part, but his Superman had no personality. Kate Bosworth was completely wrong for the part of Lois Lane. She was way too young and she didn't have the attitude that Lois is supposed to have. Then you have great actors like Kevin Spacey and Frank Langella who just look like they don't even want to be there. Spacey phones it in for the whole movie except for the scene where Luthor explains his plan to Lois on the boat. Meanwhile, Langella is probably the most boring Perry White committed to screen. I did think that James Marsden, Sam Huntington and Parker Posey were okay in their roles. And why the hell is Kal Penn in this as a henchman? I think he had maybe one line.

2. Bryan Singer copied way too much from the 1978 film. We get it, he wanted to pay homage, and that's fine, but don't give us a rehashed version of the same movie. You want to use the John Williams score? Great, everyone loves it anyway. You want to throw in some lines from the original film like Superman's airplane statistics line? Okay, if kept to a minimum. But recycling plot points like Superman and Lois flying over the city or pretty much Lex Luthor's whole story arc (dimwit girlfriend, creating a new landmass)? Give me a break. That's my main problem with Superman Returns. Audiences didn't go nuts for it because it's essentially the same thing that had been around for nearly 30 years prior to that.

 

[elgaz]

I've posted lots about Superman Returns before so there's no point in repeating myself; I mostly agree with what the majority of others here seem to think, it's not an absolutely terrible film overall but it is a very flawed one which seemed to miss the mark completely.

It was on again the other day as I channel-surfed and watched a little of it. Bryan Singer very obviously took a lot of cues from Donner; his Superman film is based in the same universe, seemingly follows on from the events of Superman II, has more or less the same characters, uses the same score for the theme, and so on. The main villain (Lex Luthor) even has all the same motivations as before. All of this is well known by now.

Whilst watching the film however, it struck me that despite Singer obviously making a huge effort to follow in Donner's footsteps, he got the entire tone of the film wrong. Watch the 1978 Superman, and then watch Superman returns, and you'd be hard pressed to think that some of the key characters are even remotely related to each other.

Superman is every bit as heroic as before in terms of his actions, but as a character? Much less charismatic, more melancholy, seemingly almost depressed at times. Donner's Superman came off as whiter than white, always doing his utmost to be there for everyone who needed him and even telling Lois Lane he never lies - yet Singer's Superman has no problem spying on people in their homes or abandoning Earth for 5yrs in a fruitless trip to a planet which he already knew was destroyed. We saw glimpses of the iconic Superman character in SR, but it never felt like the same character that we've grown up with.

Lois Lane? Feisty, absent minded, passionate and driven in Donner's films. Singer's Lois Lane didn't come across the same way at all; more confused, angsty, reflective.

Perry White? Bellowing, commanding and authoritative in Donner's films. In SR, he was much more subdued and reserved.

Lex Luthor was pretty much as before in fairness. But this was half the problem. Lex Luthor in Donner's films may have been smug and ingenious, but watching the same character hatch yet another elaborate scheme to make him rich through real-estate in 2006 felt ...................... well, boring. We've seen much more interesting and creative villains since 1978.

So what we got was a muddled half-continuation of the Donner films, but with a different take on some of the characters. And that to me is why really, it fundamentally didn't work at the core - neither the viewer (or perhaps even Singer) had a 100% clear picture of what this film was trying to be. And with them trying to compensate for the gap between the original films and this one, the story issues weren't the only problem - you had continuity errors, a new look for the Superman suit which didn't really work at all, poor CGi instead of decent wirework, and so on.

Singer should have taken a new approach entirely, like Snyder has done.

 

[Dr.]

So what we got was a muddled half-continuation of the Donner films, but with a different take on some of the characters. And that to me is why really, it fundamentally didn't work at the core - neither the viewer (or perhaps even Singer) had a 100% clear picture of what this film was trying to be. And with them trying to compensate for the gap between the original films and this one, the story issues weren't the only problem - you had continuity errors, a new look for the Superman suit which didn't really work at all, poor CGi instead of decent wirework, and so on.

Singer should have taken a new approach entirely, like Snyder has done.

Even as a fan of SR, I can appreciate (some of) this criticism. It seems clear to me that Singer was interested in the thematic tension between the hero’s traditional duties and his innate desire for normalcy. And according to Singer, these two aspects are incompatible - thus the story is necessarily melancholy (not to say tragic - though F. Scott Fitzgerald once said: “Show me a hero and I’ll write you a tragedy.” ).

Now, I see this as a fascinating - and entirely legitimate - interpretation of the mythos. But in retrospect, I think Singer should have crafted his movie as a fully unique iteration. In tone, it’s certainly quite a bit different than Donner’s version. Yet by using the Williams music and various/numerous other homages, he implies a continuity - one that, imo, doesn't/shouldn’t exist.

Granted, a (say) new and original music score would not address the typical complaints that many critics have expressed (e.g., Superman having a son). But such changes would have, at least, given SR its own identity - rather than being the weird hybrid that it is.

 

[Pittman4Two]

Almost two pages and no mention (unless I missed it) of the illegit son.

Why did a son have to be written into this movie?

It's one of the main reasons I don't consider plucking the DVD out of the rack.

 

[elgaz]

I think we've discussed the son issue to death before, which is probably why it hasn't been mentioned here ............ but yeah, that was one of the biggest issues with SR also.

 

[Tyrone Parker]

Have you seen his recent pics? Or even the series "Partners"? He's matured a lot in the last few years.

I'll take him over Cavill *and* the Smallville guy any day, thank you.

In the movie he looked like an effeminate wimp. Cavill looks exactly how Superman should, straight out of the comic book.

Your nuts if you would pick that pretty boy wimp over Cavill.

Glad you have nothing to do with this movie.

 

[Micromind]

In the movie he looked like an effeminate wimp. Cavill looks exactly how Superman should, straight out of the comic book.

Your nuts if you would pick that pretty boy wimp over Cavill.

Glad you have nothing to do with this movie.

How Routh looked in SR, depended on the movie's director.

* His Suit design could have been much better, it never looked good.

* He was asked to stop gym training so that he would not put on too much muscle.

* His hair style and make-up was bad too.

In end, you have to realize that If Routh had never auditioned for that part, it could have been Cavill in that SR suit, make-up and story.

 

[LL2K2]

In the movie he looked like an effeminate wimp.

This...

is 'wimpy'?

Cavill looks exactly how Superman should, straight out of the comic book.

So did Routh. He's the only actor to pay homage to the hero's first ever appearance:

 

[kalzor]

In the movie he looked like an effeminate wimp. Cavill looks exactly how Superman should, straight out of the comic book.

Your nuts if you would pick that pretty boy wimp over Cavill.

Glad you have nothing to do with this movie.

Or people have differing opinions and tastes. Seriously. Get over it.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Did you miss where it was said " in the movie he looked like an effeminate wimp"? Were those pix from the movie? Don't think so. I've seen Brandon in 3 moves, SR, Scott Pilgrim, and Dylan Dog. He just does not have the prescene or charisma to be a movie star actor. His Clark was better than his Superman! It takes more than looking like Christopher to be Superman.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Has routh made any comments anywhere on his opinion of cavil or MOS? I'm sure some people are asking him...maybe not a ton?

 

[Achille]

Has routh made any comments anywhere on his opinion of cavil or MOS? I'm sure some people are asking him...maybe not a ton?

Last thing I found was 2 years ago on Superherohype

http://www.superherohype.com/news/a...routh-and-huntington-think-about-man-of-steel

What Do Routh and Huntington Think About Man of Steel?

by SuperHeroHype
April 21, 2011
Share this story





SuperHeroHype got a chance to talk to Dylan Dog: Dead of Night stars Brandon Routh and Sam Huntington today and we asked them about Zack Snyder's upcoming Superman movie Man of Steel. The two actors previously starred together in the Bryan Singer-directed Superman Returns in 2006.
SuperHeroHype: Have the wounds healed over the Superman casting?

(They both laugh)

Routh: It's long over and it's all done. I obviously want them to do a nice job because there are a lot of people counting on a good film. Including us.

Huntington: We all want to see a good movie.

Routh: It's Hollywood.

Huntington: They've got Nolan and Snyder, so visually and story-wise, they'll come together for something...

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Routh: It's Hollywood.

LMAO!!!!

Sorry, something about that was hilarious.

 

[Showtime]

Why are people even bothering to come in here and rip on Routh and champion Cavill. There is a whole different section for Cavill and this section for Superman Returns and Routh.

Hello.

 

[Caped Wonder]

It's so popular to rip on Routh and SR, but damn when I saw this movie in the theaters (several times) in 2006, I fell in love with it. In fact, it really made me a fan of Superman, now my favorite superhero.
I thought Routh was good - perfect for the feel of this movie, which was more insular, more meditative, exactly the kind of things audiences today don't want to see in a comic book movie.

Hello!

 

[doobie]

It's funny cause there are loads of scenes in the movie I love taken on their own. And seeing that shot of Superman lifting a car, in a realistic Nolan style city shot, reminded me of the goosebumps I got seeing that scene on the big screen. But the film as a whole was a confused failure imo.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Hello, I am a longtime lurker (about 3 years) of SHHYPE. It's been a boon to me since I work an overnite shift and I have been a superhero fan (DC AND MARVEL) since I was old enough to talk. The release of a new SUPERMAN film has got my fanboy juices flowing (I know, I know... Eeewwww!) and I hope MOS just knocks it out of the park. What is prompting me to post is that on the MOS boards proper there seems to be this strain of posters that are using SR as a way to bash S:TM/SII. It seems younger fans and some older ones too believe that SR fails because it hews too closely to what came before. It's almost gospel now on the MOS boards that this is it's ultimate sin. I am looking forward to MOS. I am hyped to see a action filled,big and epic SUPERMAN film for the ages. I am hoping that it can and will excede what was done by Donner and Co. in 1978. But I don't need to tear down an obviously highly influential film that has laid the ground work for every single successful superhero film since, barring perhaps BAT'89, and one could argue THAT would'nt have been made without it's success. Still, I think that becuse Singer so closely wanted the nostalgia of those films to rub off on his own works we now have a vocal group who lay SR's failure to launch a new round of "SUPERMANIA" on it's reliance on previous work. Let me make my opinion totally clear. SR does not fail to be a good film because it's an eratz Donner Superman film. It's a poor film becuse it's poor film: A bad idea(Supes unecessarily leaving Earth/love child plot), a bad Lois with no on screen charisma or chemistry with her co star, a lack of any humor or heart, and while I like Routh actually, he has maybe two pages of dialoge in this film. This plus other criticisms cannot be said of S:TM. In other words, SR fails becuase it is not like the Donner/Reeve original.

 

[Dude]

It's funny cause there are loads of scenes in the movie I love taken on their own. And seeing that shot of Superman lifting a car, in a realistic Nolan style city shot, reminded me of the goosebumps I got seeing that scene on the big screen. But the film as a whole was a confused failure imo.

Agree completely. The film had some amazing scenes but in the end felt schizophrenic. Superman is shown as a messianic figure protecting the earth one minute and an absentee father stalking his ex girlfriend whom he knocked up and skipped town on the next.

 

[doobie]

Even as a fan of SR, I can appreciate (some of) this criticism. It seems clear to me that Singer was interested in the thematic tension between the hero’s traditional duties and his innate desire for normalcy. And according to Singer, these two aspects are incompatible - thus the story is necessarily melancholy (not to say tragic - though F. Scott Fitzgerald once said: “Show me a hero and I’ll write you a tragedy.” ).

Now, I see this as a fascinating - and entirely legitimate - interpretation of the mythos. But in retrospect, I think Singer should have crafted his movie as a fully unique iteration. In tone, it’s certainly quite a bit different than Donner’s version. Yet by using the Williams music and various/numerous other homages, he implies a continuity - one that, imo, doesn't/shouldn’t exist.

Granted, a (say) new and original music score would not address the typical complaints that many critics have expressed (e.g., Superman having a son). But such changes would have, at least, given SR its own identity - rather than being the weird hybrid that it is.

agree completely with this, I mean the scenes in the daily planet - such as when he sees Lois through the elevator, were magical and 1930s looking like nothing in a Superman movie before. And the big scenes like the plane rescue and the beating in the fortress were as some god-like myth. The idea of a sad, reflective Superman film where he returns from long absence to find the world moved on was great. But the camp Luthor, the cold and distant feel it all had, the constant references to the 70s films made it feel confused.

 

[doobie]

Also I think Routh was too young to play a regretful, experienced Superman. He looks like a new Superman just starting out full of optimism and would have been better in such a story.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

The touches of the old films (Williams most of all) are what make the film at all tolerable to me. And that plane scene. Alas, when the creative minds behind its creation did not even understand that the starting point of their story (Superman leaves Earth to go to the remnanants of Krypton cuz some human scientists have found it? Between his powers and his access to tech "100,000's years inadvanced" of our own that idea is nonsensical. On the character side Superman would never leave the planet if there was even a chance Lois was pregnant with his child. And he would know! He's the gosh darned Superman!) thats to be expected. See it's all the non Donnerverse elements that sink this particular battleship. Also, Kate Bosworth is a horrid choice for Lois. Horrid.

 

[Thoix]

After watching the "Return to Krypton" deleted scene I just cannot understand why they cut it out of the movie. If anything had to be cut it should have been some of the Lois or Lex scenes. Lois is such a boring and dumb character in this movie, and Kate Bosworth with just a terrible choice for Lois Lane.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Brandon on Henry and MOS:

Geek: With “Man of Steel” coming out, there's big Superman talk all around, but it’s not you in the suit. Is that a bittersweet experience?

Routh: I would have liked to done another movie. I love the character, and the fans are great. It has been an amazing family to be a part of. I feel like I still had more to do, and to grow as the character. But Henry [Cavill] is a great actor and has done a nice job. I’m happy for Superman fans that they get another film.

Geek: Has there been any interaction between you and Cavill?

Routh: No, I’ve never met him but I look forward to. He actually screen tested, I think, for the one iteration of the film I did as well back in 2004 and didn’t get it. He’s deserving of it, but had to wait a while.

http://geek-news.mtv.com/2013/06/12/brandon-routh-superman-returns-man-of-steel/