Superman Returns The Official Superman Returns Discussion

[Wheels]

Alright, I thought we should start a thread for discussing Superman Returns so we don't anger the mods any farther.

So let's post our opinions here.

 

[KalMart]

I thought it used too much of the Donner movie and the red was too dark.



What year is this?

 

[simplysuperhero]

I only watched part of it and was so disappointed that I returned it to netflix. Wasn't worth my time.

 

[mojo-x]

Sr was the most dissapointing movie I ever saw.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

SR is an amazing Superman movie to me, and the movie that got me to like Superman as a character and got me reading the comics, I still watch it and love it and look at it fondly. Its a shame we will never get a follow up to it, but I at least hope that Brandon Routh gets to play Superman for many more movies yet.

 

[El Payaso]

Lack of action was not the only thing that killed SR.

It’s more the lack of humongous numbers at the BO.

It was overall a very dull and depressing story, and it did not give us what we wanted.

I’ve seen lots of depressing stories in superhero movies that are big hits. I don’t think that’s the reason.

We still had the scheming goofball Lex Luthor rather than the power hungry CEO, John Kent is still dead, and worst of all Superman is stuck with a illegitimate kid who he can't be a father to!

You really thing general audiences give half a damn about Jonathan Kent or Lex Luthor being a metaphor of the greedy business man so the lack of those was that dissapointed them?

Again we have seen other movies with villiains that wants to destroy7 part of the world in order to take over it and people haven’t complained.

and worst of all Superman is stuck with a illegitimate kid who he can't be a father to!

The kid was controversial. For a character like Superman. But I still can’t see real evidence of the relation between the kid and the BO.

No matter what they do, there's no way to correctly "fix" the situation with Lois.

As there wasn’t in Superman II. But then they used something like the amnesia kiss and people still bought tickets.

The situation between Lois and Superman in movies has always been like that: trying to get better but never able to.

She's in a stable relationship with a good man,

Stable and fake. She has been refusing marriage even before Superman came back. And as soon as he came back she felt immediatelly attracted to him again, majking her relationship with Richard... unstable.

and if she leaves him for Superman that makes Superman a homewrecker,

Because she has no will of her own right?

Fact is if she leaves Richard, it’s because she doesn’t actually love him. Nobody is putting a gun againste her head.

and if Richard dies then it will seem phony and too convenient.

I doubt they’ll use such a bad idea.

It's been 3 years since SR came out, and it was 5 years after Batman and Robin that Warner Bros. rebooted Batman.

Wrong. It was 8 years.

I hope we don't have to wait that long for "Superman Begins," but it still is taking a while for SR's mediocrity to wash off.

Well, it’s taking only 2 to 3 years to wash off the mediocrity of Spiderman 3. Oh but that movie made a lot of money. Thus I stick to my “lack of humongous numbers at the BO” theory.

I'm hoping that Warner Bros. gets off their asses and tries to get one out for Christmas '11, but that doesn't seem likely to happen, and summer '12 doesn't seem too likely either since that's when Green Lantern is due out.

I think Warner Bros. needs to accept that if they want DC to catch up with Marvel, they're going to have to release more than on DC movie a year!

Or maybe one great movie (TDK) a year. Most of times quality beats quantity.

 

[KalMart]

And why is it that it that SR didn't make 'humongous numbers at the box-office'?

 

[Timstuff]

Because it was mediocre, dull, slow, and depressing, as I mentioned before. It's not even like the movie was dark. It was just depressing, and that's not what people wanted after 20 years of waiting for a Superman film. And on top of that, the movie felt out of date for a 2006 movie since Singer was emulating the first two movies, which made it less palletable for the new generation who is does not view the originals with nostalgia goggles. They shouldn't have made the movie with the assumption that everyone has seen STM and holds it on the same pedistal as the hardcore fanboys. Even I don't have much sentiment for the original STM, because when I was a kid it used to put me to sleep.

 

[Wheels]

Because it was boring.

The general audience doesn't care about the stuff we talk about on the boardS, they just want an entertaining movie.

 

[Timstuff]

When I complain about things like Pa Kent dying or Luthor being a goofball, I'm not saying those are things that turned off the audience-- I'm saying that they're things that turned fans off to the film, like myself. Overall, the audience thought SR was boring and depressing. If they want to set up the next movie to be liked by fans and laymen alike, I think their best bet is to start at the beginning, have plenty of action and fights, and acknowledge that there is MORE to Superman than the Donner films.

 

[Wheels]

When I complain about things like Pa Kent dying or Luthor being a goofball, I'm not saying those are things that turned off the audience-- I'm saying that they're things that turned fans off to the film, like myself. Overall, the audience thought SR was boring and depressing. If they want to set up the next movie to be liked by fans and laymen alike, I think their best bet is to start at the beginning, have plenty of action and fights, and acknowledge that there is MORE to Superman than the Donner films.

I agree 100%, especially with that last part

 

[El Payaso]

And why is it that it that SR didn't make 'humongous numbers at the box-office'?

Lack of action. it's in Timstuff post. It's what I think too.

Because it was mediocre, dull, slow, and depressing, as I mentioned before. It's not even like the movie was dark. It was just depressing, and that's not what people wanted after 20 years of waiting for a Superman film.

Well, many of the members of the audience didn't wait 20 years.

And many movies are not about happiness and they work fine.

Was The Dark Knight about joy and good vibes?

And on top of that, the movie felt out of date for a 2006 movie since Singer was emulating the first two movies,

So if a superhero movie emulates, let’s say the original comics from 40 or 70 years ago it will feel dated too?

There was modern CGI, a more modern suit, different actors, a whole new city (not New York) etc etc etc. The previous movies were a base but this was not a literal copy.

They shouldn't have made the movie with the assumption that everyone has seen STM and holds it on the same pedistal as the hardcore fanboys.

It was an approach but surely not a safe way to do it. I agree.

Even I don't have much sentiment for the original STM, because when I was a kid it used to put me to sleep.

Well, neither STM or SR are recommendable for children that are too young.

 

[El Payaso]

They can't fix the Richard / Jason situation because it was Bryan Singer's onscreen therapy session,

No more than ET or AI were Spielberg’s onscreen therapy sessions.

That said, where do you get such an idea that the Richard/Jason situation can’t be fixed – that is, developed?

Maybe you can’t find a way of developing that plot but that is far from meaning it can’t be done.

and frankly I do not think that's a direction the franchise should be moving in. It was a stupid place to position the franchise, which is why it never should have happen.

How is it stupid? Other than you personally didn’t like it, that is.

I think it'd make more sense to just do an origin story than to try and clean up Singer's mess. He did not bring anything to the franchise that I think is worth hanging on to except possibly Routh, and even he would be easily replaceable in an origin film.

He did bring a lot. A more mature Superman movie where he is more than a 2 dimention day-saver. Where his actions can’t be magically erased in the last minute and where not everything is bright and pink just because he has a kind heart, good intentions and awesome powers.

 

[El Payaso]

When I complain about things like Pa Kent dying or Luthor being a goofball, I'm not saying those are things that turned off the audience-- I'm saying that they're things that turned fans off to the film, like myself.

Sorry but that’s exactly what you said:

“Lack of action was not the only thing that killed SR. It was overall a very dull and depressing story, and it did not give us what we wanted. We still had the scheming goofball Lex Luthor rather than the power hungry CEO, John Kent is still dead, and worst of all Superman is stuck with a illegitimate kid who he can't be a father to!”

Now if it’s about fans, well, they make a tiny percentage of what a movie makes, not to mention that what they want varies from fan to fan.

Overall, the audience thought SR was boring and depressing. If they want to set up the next movie to be liked by fans and laymen alike, I think their best bet is to start at the beginning, have plenty of action and fights, and acknowledge that there is MORE to Superman than the Donner films.

Exactly what I recommended before.

 

[KalMart]

He did bring a lot. A more mature Superman movie where he is more than a 2 dimention day-saver. Where his actions can’t be magically erased in the last minute and where not everything is bright and pink just because he has a kind heart, good intentions and awesome powers.

Yes....a soap opera disguised as a superhero movie....in nothing but glasses.


To be fair, Nolan also basically disguised his movies as Batman....but he chose a gothic thriller and a crime epic.

 

[El Payaso]

A soap opera disguised as superhero movie....in nothing but glasses.


To be fair, Nolan also basically disguised his movies as Batman....but he chose a gothic thriller and a crime epic.

And Raimi chose superhero to disguise his teenage romantic comedy. So all took their risks.

 

[KalMart]

And Raimi chose superhero to disguise his teenage romantic comedy. So all took their risks.

And one of them didn't take.

Who needs action when you've got all that juicy drama?

 

[El Payaso]

And one of them didn't take.

Who needs action when you've got all that juicy drama?

All of them need the action, what in the divine hell are you talking about?

Or are you just trying to be funny.

 

[KalMart]

So why didn't SR have it?

 

[El Payaso]

So why didn't SR have it?

Go ask Bryan?

What do I know about his decisions?


...

Still trying to be funny? Haha?

 

[KalMart]

Go ask Bryan?

What do I know about his decisions?

Y'mean aside from this.....?

He did bring a lot. A more mature Superman movie where he is more than a 2 dimention day-saver. Where his actions can’t be magically erased in the last minute and where not everything is bright and pink just because he has a kind heart, good intentions and awesome powers.

Still trying to be funny? Haha?

Never was.

Still trying to tread water?



Haha?

 

[KalMart]

When people say that the lack of action wasn't the only problem, it's accurate because what we were left with just wasn't that engaging. More action would only, at best, have helped distract us from it, not enhance it like it did with other movies. The biggest problem with the movie was with what it had, not what it didn't. There are many ways to make a more mature/thoughtful/etc. Superman story without having to dive feet-first into somber and forlorn soap opera territory. I believe that Singer felt that audiences would have an inherent reverence for the character (and the Donner movie) that would somehow make that sullen melodrama more interesting by the simple fact that it was Superman....but it didn't take. It was a ponderous and uninteresting story no matter who it was about....and with Supes in particular, it eviscerates a lot of what people who have any familiarity with Superman want to see. Quite an astonishing achievement, really, in a morbid sort of way.

And to top it off, he didn't even deal with it in a heroic or upstanding way. In fact, the only one who did was Richard....and he ends up being the guy who stands to lose the most after everything's said and done! Did Supes learn something through being powerless in such personal issues that made him a better Superman for going through it? No...the only revelation was a biological one...accidental, to boot.....whose consequences could end up being a lot more damaging to others...never mind his happy surprise.. Sure, his power/speed/friendliness can't solve everything....but neither can anything else he's got, really, in this case. And it's his doing. Way to go, Superman.

So overall, if you're not going to have some serious and engaging action in a movie like this, then you better make what is there fascinating, or at least interesting enough that the character's presence adds an interesting perspective to it, and make it its own story/continuity....especially if you want to claim a popular contemporary place in this environment/genre. SR underperformed in that area quite considerably....and unfortunately, it had nothing else to offer outside of it to at least offer a relief. It could have been an effective comedy if they actually recognized and worked off of the irony, but as it stands, it's more of a tragedy with no lesson.

That said, it did still (somehow) gross $391M, so the Superman name itself has got to still be worth something. But if they want to get more than that with that kind of investment, and hopefully attract the kind of moviegoer enthusiasm to continue on, they'll need more than 'action' to help it out. And it's pretty clear that they understand and accept that....hence rebooting and dropping the melodramatic story elements that bogged the last film down, but would invariably have to be readdressed/resolved if doing a sequel.

 

[El Payaso]

Y'mean aside from this.....?

Sooooo... what does that have to do weoth anything?

That was mertely my appreciation fo what I think the movie brought, not about why Bryan Singer made this or that decision.

I can like Bryan's decisions, I can't know why did he make them.

Still trying to tread water?

 

[KalMart]

Sooooo... what does that have to do weoth anything?

That was mertely my appreciation fo what I think the movie brought, not about why Bryan Singer made this or that decision.

I can like Bryan's decisions, I can't know why did he make them.

How 'bout because he wanted to?


Soooo.....you said that all superhero movies need action, and yet you like his unknowable decision not to have very much of it. Nice.

Alrighty then.

 

[El Payaso]

How 'bout because he wanted to?

Of course he wanted to. Everybody decides things because "they wanted to," if for that. I assumed you were after knowing what exactly justified his decisions. If for "he wanted to," that means you already knew the answer as to why Bryan Singer decided anything; so you had no need to ask (specially me).

Soooo.....you said that all superhero movies need action, and yet you like his unknowable decision not to have very much of it. Nice.

If they want humongous numbers at the BO, they need more action, yes.

That's not saying I'd need more action for liking the movie. See the difference?

Alrighty then.

You've achieved acceptance.