Superman Returns Question for those who didnt like/disappointed the movie...

[SentinelMind]

When Superman gets beat up is that not an intense, nerve wracking scene? When he talks to his son at the end is that not an emotional scene?

Sheesh. What does it take?!

Superman getting beat up by regular men was a bit intense, I'll give you that.
I thought watching him talk to the son in the sleep was rather cliche and banal, frankly, I didn't like his speech and giving a cliche speech while someone is asleep never makes sense to me. It's sort of life one character wants to give a monologue to another without the interaction because *gasp*, the interaction would mean the resolving a conflict. Singer certainly didn't want to do that in this movie.

 

[Gnome Twill]

When Superman gets beat up is that not an intense, nerve wracking scene? When he talks to his son at the end is that not an emotional scene?

Sheesh. What does it take?!

OK - it should have been, but in my opinion wasn't. I found Routh's performance to be a little flat and the storyline/dialogue which lead up to that moment in the film, made me think "meh, so what."

I wish that hadn't been the case, I so wanted to give SR a chance and I judged it purely on its own merits (as best as I could, anyway) and I ended up bored and unsatisfied with it. Now, I realise that there are obviously some people who got a real kick out of SR, but I have loved Superman for 30 something years (erm, not like that, you understand... t: ) but I came away from SR and found myself not feeling anything positive about it at all.

However, at least McG/Burton/Cage, etc were not involved, I suppose that's something. Anyway, on a more positive note, I'll be the first in the queue for the Donner cut of Superman II though.

 

[LadyVader]

It's not cliche, it's befitting. What could he say:
"Ok, slugger. When it comes to kryptonite and loose women, just say no!"

The kid is like four years old. What point would it have made for him to be awake? You think he could've understood what was going on? And if he did, you think he could've kept the secret? There is no interaction because the situation does not call for it. Superman has to come to terms with the fact that he has son, not the other way around. Because Jason already has a father.

 

[SentinelMind]

The problem I have with the movie is that it would have overall been better off being the pilot of a new WB sitcom called "Metropolis" instead of being a stand-alone movie that defines and introduces Superman to the mass audience. Singer throws in numerous false premises that don't get resolved. Obviously, nobody cares that Superman is gone for 5 years. Singer doesn't explain the nature of Lois and Superman's relationship. Singer doesn't explain why Superman thinks life on a distant planet that was declared destroyed is plausible or what he expects to accomplish there. Furthermore, the entire story is drawn out instead of being fresh and to the point, the character of Superman is made emo and arrogant instead of uplifting and fresh. Singer is good at drawing out empty dialogue and stuffing pointless imagery and Christ-like symbolism into the film to obscure the mindless and shameless plot, which is Superman spies on Lois, Lois lies and deceives everyone, and we all find out the kid is Superman's anyway. The entire movie is Superman stalking a woman whose relationship isn't explained. The movie was so empty and hollow (I'll grant it had a nice shell and appetizer, but where's the meat?)

 

[Lighthouse]

The problem I have with the movie is that it would have overall been better off being the pilot of a new WB sitcom called "Metropolis" instead of being a stand-alone movie that defines and introduces Superman to the mass audience. Singer throws in numerous false premises that don't get resolved. Obviously, nobody cares that Superman is gone for 5 years. Singer doesn't explain the nature of Lois and Superman's relationship. Singer doesn't explain why Superman thinks life on a distant planet that was declared destroyed is plausible or what he expects to accomplish there. Furthermore, the entire story is drawn out instead of being fresh and to the point, the character of Superman is made emo and arrogant instead of uplifting and fresh. Singer is good at drawing out empty dialogue and stuffing pointless imagery and Christ-like symbolism into the film to obscure the mindless and shameless plot, which is Superman spies on Lois, Lois lies and deceives everyone, and we all find out the kid is Superman's anyway. The entire movie is Superman stalking a woman whose relationship isn't explained. The movie was so empty and hollow (I'll grant it had a nice shell and appetizer, but where's the meat?)

Thats a pretty good summation of my problems with the movie. Superman barely speaks in this movie and it leaves so many plots points unresolved.

 

[The Kid]

that's roughly why I equate this movie to a shiny sports car with a 20 year old worn out engine.

 

[LadyVader]

The problem I have with the movie is that it would have overall been better off being the pilot of a new WB sitcom called "Metropolis" instead of being a stand-alone movie that defines and introduces Superman to the mass audience. Singer throws in numerous false premises that don't get resolved. Obviously, nobody cares that Superman is gone for 5 years. Singer doesn't explain the nature of Lois and Superman's relationship. Singer doesn't explain why Superman thinks life on a distant planet that was declared destroyed is plausible or what he expects to accomplish there. Furthermore, the entire story is drawn out instead of being fresh and to the point, the character of Superman is made emo and arrogant instead of uplifting and fresh. Singer is good at drawing out empty dialogue and stuffing pointless imagery and Christ-like symbolism into the film to obscure the mindless and shameless plot, which is Superman spies on Lois, Lois lies and deceives everyone, and we all find out the kid is Superman's anyway. The entire movie is Superman stalking a woman whose relationship isn't explained. The movie was so empty and hollow (I'll grant it had a nice shell and appetizer, but where's the meat?)

You do raise some valid points but most of that post is just exaggeration. Superman only looks in on Lois once because Jimmy told him she was still in love with him, and Jimmy works with her every day so it's not like he's talking out of his ass or anything.
Lois could very well believe that Jason is Richard's son until she sees Jason throw the piano at that thug. Sure that makes her a bit of a **** but it's better then being a liar.
And I really don't get where you come off saying Superman is arrogant. He's in love and simply wants to see if those feelings are still reciprocated. When Lois walks away, what does he do.. he lets her walk away. He doesn't try to convince her to stay with him.

 

[SentinelMind]

You do raise some valid points but most of that post is just exaggeration. Superman only looks in on Lois once because Jimmy told him she was still in love with him, and Jimmy works with her every day so it's not like he's talking out of his ass or anything.
Lois could very well believe that Jason is Richard's son until she sees Jason throw the piano at that thug. Sure that makes her a bit of a **** but it's better then being a liar.
And I really don't get where you come off saying Superman is arrogant. He's in love and simply wants to see if those feelings are still reciprocated. When Lois walks away, what does he do.. he lets her walk away. He doesn't try to convince her to stay with him.

Lois lies to her fiance saying she was never in love with Superman, lies telling him that she wasn't smoking ("Don't lie now honey" Richard). If she really thought the child was Richard then ...damn.....but do we know this? Singer doesn't let us in.

Hearing some off-hand remark that Lois may still be in love (and this is all Jimmy speculating and rumormongering ) is not a valid excuse to have Superman using his X-ray vision to spy on Lois Lane private conversations with her lover. I cringed in my seat during those scenes.

Superman is kind of arrogant in assuming that Lois will still be there ready for him when he comes back (but why he thinks this isn't fully explained..I'm going to repeat this many times), and tries to move in as a homewrecker going in for the kiss. The entire flight with Lois was just a way to woo her away from Richard, which is not moral or uplifting thing to do. Putting the homewreckerness aside, he basically uses his powers and not his heart to win over Lois.

Anther thing I don't like is how the whole does the world need Superman is basically reduced a to a metaphor of "should I wait up for my ex-boyfriend" instead of contemplating about the moral and social ramifications of depending upon a superhero to solve your problems. Lois essentially lies and Superman essentially acts arrogant throughout the use of this reduced metaphor.

The movie delivers the lesson that its ok to abandon your lover for 5 years to discover your roots without telling her.

 

[matthooper]

Even if I could overlook the melodramatic Lois/Superman stuff, the kid, the leaving without any real consequence for Earth, what can't be overlooked is Lex and his plan as the big antagonist. I'll even put aside that one missile from the Navy would have destroyed New Krypton. Nothing from his ascension to power, to the rediculous plan, to the pulling off of the plan did anything but ring hollow. Not one thing in the plan or the culmination of the plan had any imagination or originality. It was a big rock with kryptonite. Even if Lex had won and sold NK land, who would want it? It had no beauty, no style, no nothing. Imagine what could have been. The Kryptonian technology, the beasts of Krypton, it was a big ugly rock. That's what Lex could have used to try and defeat Superman, real cool kryptonian technology. Singer used kryptonite, and didn't know that a chunk embedded in his back would actually render him powerless. Not one defender of the film can deny that one fact.

 

[Lighthouse]

Even if I could overlook the melodramatic Lois/Superman stuff, the kid, the leaving without any real consequence for Earth, what can't be overlooked is Lex and his plan as the big antagonist. I'll even put aside that one missile from the Navy would have destroyed New Krypton. Nothing from his ascension to power, to the rediculous plan, to the pulling off of the plan did anything but ring hollow. Not one thing in the plan or the culmination of the plan had any imagination or originality. It was a big rock with kryptonite. Even if Lex had won and sold NK land, who would want it? It had no beauty, no style, no nothing. Imagine what could have been. The Kryptonian technology, the beasts of Krypton, it was a big ugly rock. That's what Lex could have used to try and defeat Superman, real cool kryptonian technology. Singer used kryptonite, and didn't know that a chunk embedded in his back would actually render him powerless. Not one defender of the film can deny that one fact.

Quite true. Even if he does recharge in the sun, it still doesn't hold up. If Superman can even move with a kryptonite sliver in his back, then Kryptonite is a pretty pathetic weapon. I'm only hardcore about the kryptonite because it is Superman's ONLY weakness(aside from magic which I'm pretty sure we'll never see here).

 

[hammy]

Nope but I might rent it for the extras disk.

Ditto.

I knew Singer would blow it.

 

[superbaby]

When Superman gets beat up is that not an intense, nerve wracking scene?

no. it should have done it this way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS83Oc6UaqI
yeah, beating superman is fun. hope singer would see it and copy it into the sequel.

 

[Spade]

The beatdown is primarily why I don't buy the argument about how "Doomsday can't be in anything but The Death of Superman". When I went to see the film and that particular portion arose the theater was dead silent. Posts made by SHH members occasionally mention small children crying. The notion of Superman being beat that hard by anyone for so callous a reason is a sobering one.

That's my one major complaint with this film- while I personally feel it was a great film, Singer spent so much of his time with character development (which is ironically what the third X-Men film he left so desperately needed) that he didn't put a valid villainous element such as this film needed. To me a character such as Doomsday would have been great for the film in many ways. It brings in an element of mortality to Superman by a character known for killing him in the comics, without aging him as the child will undoubtedly do, and would make the character benefit in image by being handled by a director who adds depth to his characters (something the comic Doomsday is completely devoid of).

To me this film could have had a higher sense of pace and less moody Superman moments. Obviously when Singer left the X-Men franchise to do this and put all his effort into it his style of directing showed more chinks in the armor due to his tendency to overdevelop the psyches of his characters. I feel that if there were more intensity it could have benefitted, and a vicious brawl between Superman and a character who the audience would never question the capacities to kill Superman with the proper abilities would have been good.

The script could have introduced him as a creature the island's crystals created as a perversion of various creatures in the ocean, the Kryptonian knowledge in them now corrupted by the Kryptonite inpurity. Then we would see Doomsday rise with no remorse and beat down the weakened Superman. I don't, however, see the need to make him so associated with Superman's death. Superman being so brutally beat would be a tense moment as it is. They could have had him beat Superman, then throw him into the ocean. Lex would be distressed by the sudden monstrosity unwittingly created, and try to escape. Superman could be found and saved from a watery grave, then allowed to recharge. He could weld the creature from a distance to the side of a mountain on the perpetually-growing continent with heat-vision, then dig into it's crust and throw him and the continent into space.

This way you leave both characters alive, give everyone a villain loads better than 'Nuclear Man' or a Zod rehash to challenge Superman, and leave a nice opening for a sequel- what if he frees himself in space, is freed from the continent by a 'mysterious benefactor', etc.? Instead, we got little vision for such conflict, an anti-climatic end, and the glancing flaw of pace.

EDIT: And as an additional, it could even fit in with the theme of the film- no one says Doomsday has to look exactly as he did in the books in his first appearance. It would make more sense for him to lack the 'bony protrusions' the first time around if he were just a hybrid creature. Perhaps he could simply have memory crystal padding over certain areas. Then, when they made a sequel, it would follow the progression of Superman Returns- Doomsday menaces the Earth once again now with memory crystals growing out of the areas where his comic incarnation had 'bony protrusions'. They sort of resemble the somewhat-crystalline Kryptonian crystals to begin with. You could even tie in a 'mystery villain' by saying someone intentionally mutated him. The possibilities are endless...

 

[JamalYIgle]

Even if I could overlook the melodramatic Lois/Superman stuff, the kid, the leaving without any real consequence for Earth, what can't be overlooked is Lex and his plan as the big antagonist. I'll even put aside that one missile from the Navy would have destroyed New Krypton. Nothing from his ascension to power, to the rediculous plan, to the pulling off of the plan did anything but ring hollow. Not one thing in the plan or the culmination of the plan had any imagination or originality. It was a big rock with kryptonite. Even if Lex had won and sold NK land, who would want it? It had no beauty, no style, no nothing. Imagine what could have been. The Kryptonian technology, the beasts of Krypton, it was a big ugly rock. That's what Lex could have used to try and defeat Superman, real cool kryptonian technology. Singer used kryptonite, and didn't know that a chunk embedded in his back would actually render him powerless. Not one defender of the film can deny that one fact.

Except for the fact that putting NK into orbit pretty much killed him and he would have died if they hadn't removed the small spinter, not chunk, of kryptonite from his back.

 

[The Kid]

Yeah K's effects were totally butchered. I'd have just gotten some led plates and formed a nice shield for myself instead of foolishly trying to lift kryptonite like that with the layer of dirt between it and me. I never knew dirt could block kryptonite... maybe there was a bit of led in the dirt... Anyway he should have just turned back time... easy peesy.

And The only ones who died were the ones superman killed. And that dumb piano guy Superboy killed.

 

[Spade]

I never knew dirt could block kryptonite...

He wasn't in the immeadiate vicinity. It's not as if the range is a definite in the films. And from what I've seen in the first film he was in a rather immeadiate range when it worked, as he was in this film. If it worked from a range as far as you apparently would have expected it to work he would have been in crippling pain back when the meteorite was in the same continental range as he was, which was not the case.

Anyway he should have just turned back time... easy peesy.

We don't know if in Singer's loose history such an ability is still canon in Superman Returns, as Lex Luthor still seems to have a recollection of being in the Fortress of Solitude even though Donner's cut of Superman II clearly depicts the time reversal erasing all physical and mental recollection of the events outside of Superman himself.

And The only ones who died were the ones superman killed.

Debateable; it was more like manslaughter, even if you are looking at this from the most literal connotation (which I don't think should be done).

 

[JamalYIgle]

Yeah K's effects were totally butchered. I'd have just gotten some led plates and formed a nice shield for myself instead of foolishly trying to lift kryptonite like that with the layer of dirt between it and me. I never knew dirt could block kryptonite... maybe there was a bit of led in the dirt... Anyway he should have just turned back time... easy peesy.

from Oceanexplorer.com

The release of large quantities of methane gas can
have other consequences as well. Methane is one
of a group of the so-called “greenhouse gases.”
In the atmosphere, these gases allow solar radia-
tion to pass through but absorb heat radiation
that is reflected back from the Earth’s surface, thus
warming the atmosphere. Many scientists have sug-
gested that increased carbon dioxide in the atmo-
sphere produced by burning fossil fuels is causing
a “greenhouse effect” that is gradually warming
the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. A sudden
release of methane from deep-sea sediments could
have a similar effect, since methane has more than
30 times the heat-trapping ability of carbon dioxide.

Since kryptonite has as Luthor once said in STM" A specific level of systemic radiation", there's nothing in the rules that say it can't work. However as you can see, there is a basis in actual science for it.

 

[Billy Batson]

No, even tho I do love Superman, I will be geting the Donner cut of SII,

I concur.