Routh was damn close to the Reeve's rendition and as Clark he was probably more convincing in the clumsiness. I'm not saying that Routh was definitively better since it was Reeve who created that version of Clark. But as Superman he was honest and convincing, having to face much more complex things than Reeve script-wise. And it's not like Reeve's Superman was too spicy either.
Routh was a good Clark, I agree. But, he was a poor Superman. When he was in Superman mode, I found him uninteresting, uncharasmatic, and unengaging.
In fact she was the most professional of them all. More professional than Perry since she was the only one sniffing a significant piece of news behind the blackout. Not even Perry was professional enough to see beyond the razzle dazzle of Superman's return. Not even Clark, Jimmy or Richard.
Mid-interview, Lois abandons the why question when we get the dialogue blip on why he left, so we can discuss their feelings. Lois would've and should;ve dug deeper before going there. Not mid-interview. Not to mention, taking your kid to sneak in someone's house? Again, not professional, since the kid is likely to screw you up.
Bosworth was exactly like the original Lois in the comics and the Fleischer cartoons.
And John Cena looks like Steve Rogers. Doesn't mean I want him as Cap. The way she played the part was poor, and she was too young for the role of a Lois who has been around the planet for years.
I'll give you this: Spacey could have done much better with Lex. That said, some scene, like the one where Lex is beating Superman Spacey made a much more sinister Lex than Hackman.
The Prometheus story was a great Luthor scene, and showed Spacey would make an awesome Lex if given a clear vision. At least we agree here.
You mean he returns, saves hundreds of people with their children in that stadium (and plane) from a horrible inevitable death... and they forgive him so quickly?
Again, the city depends heavily on Superman. There would be people complaining about the crashed planes he DIDN'T save while he abandoned his adopted homeworld. It was a good reintroduction, but making the city instantly love him again was a stretch.
Well, after such an amazing rescue I doubt too many people would have gone "I rather those people had died than forgive Superman."
Not to mention that Superman doesn't owe crap to people.
Not everyone would see it that way. Humans feel intitlement, and Superman was the city's soul to an extent. Some would have been less than forgiving at first.
Still, there could have been a portion of people that could have felt Superman's leaving as something personal. Lois represented that fraction of people.
I'll give you this; the movie could have showed people's different reactions. From what I saw, it wasn't that vital, could have been interesting though.
I think limiting it to just Lois was a mistake, and makes the movie less broad. Superman's return is more than about Lois, Superman, and Lex. The people needed a tad more focus, and all it would've taken was one or two quick shots and blip of dialogue or two elsewhere. Not really that much screentime.
For the first time we have something intrincate about Superman and Lois' romance.
Not the average yes-but-no we have had before. Here Superman has to face the consequences of his actions, that he lost Lois, that it's not that easy to recover her since Richard is a good guy and not the average fool Lois-unworthy we could have easily hate.
Again, making Superman's return and facing his consequences and only taking into account Lois and himself is rather narrow IMO. Plus, the scenes I felt were weakly written and boring. Plus, they rehash the flight around Metropolis thing, and that is really their best bit, which is lame
By all means, start. What's with the kid? What is actually with that?
The kid is mostly useless in the movie. When you boil it down, he throws a piano and acts weak all movie. More could have been done with him. Sure, he has a scene with Superman where he is sleeping and he is son, but as far as what he does on screen, it is very little. Not to mention he makes the prospect of a sequel difficult.
He went there to see what was left of his roots, race and native planet. He said so, it was clear and further repetitive babbler about it was mostly unnecessary. Yes, a little more wouldn't have harmed, but the reason is not shallow, it is merely not over-explained.
Those are blips, and a whole two-sentences. This is not enough for me. For him to abandon his home, when his father told him that Krypton was gone, more needed to be done with it. You can't brush that aside. Him doing that was a major part of the movie, and it is mostly ignored. Two sentences is not enough.
They recycled too much for my tastes, but not every line.
They recycled most of the iconic lines and moments, and it got irritating after a while.
The story dared to go further any previous movie incarnation of the character and we were closer to see what happens inside of Superman's head and soul about not having a normal life, love and having to be bound to serve humanity at the cost of his personal life.
I don't feel it did. I feel it gave us shallow moments of drama, coupled with boring performances, thus not engaging me in what is going on. I just don't care about Superman's plight, and that is a problem.
Even in Superman II, everything was solved at the last second and Superman/Clark seemed to forget everything that happened (as if the amnesia kiss affected himself too) and in a couple of minutes he was smiling to the camera again.
And Lester's version of Superman II is mediocre. S:TM also ends ubruptly, but that had phenominal performances and made me care about the characters. That is the difference between the two movies to me.
In Singer's movie, things are not that simple. What's done is done and no time-reversing or amnesia kiss would solve thing and take them back to zero.
Time-reversing, amesia kisses. That's the kind of things that happens merely because "the script said so."
Those are plot holes in the other Superman movies. I don't defend those moments. However, Singer gives me no reason for me to see why Superman left. We needed to get into his head more on this issue. He gave us more than enough Lois whining (too much if you ask me), but leaves important things like that when we should be in Superman's head out. Bad move. At least S:TM had a great 3/4 before the time reversing, great performances, etc and Superman II had Reeve and Zod (though most good things about Superman II were left on the cutting room floor thanks to the Salkinds
). Superman Returns gave me really nothing I care to look at again, and as a Superman fan, I am sad about that.
You may disagree, and that is cool with me. I don't hate peopl who love the movie. But, saying people who hate the movie like that one guy did are ADD movie fans and don't understand it and hate it unjustly is flat out wrong, and I wanted to state for the record why I personally hated it.
^ What? That Jordan and Favre analogy is just ridiculous (in post #53). Are you talking about when they came back and played for different teams? Did Superman decide to live in another country when he came back? And when Jordan retired and came back to play for the Bulls, do you think half of Chicago resented him? They loved having him back and all he could do was play sports. Do you think people would not welcome a man who could save an airplane full of people?
Fans were split on Favre's return even when he was going to be a Packer. Jordan maybe not so much when he came back to the Bulls, but I still think people would have been mad. Metropolis depended on Superman a lot, and I think many would have been mad.
I love how much TIH fans ardently insist TIH isn't a sequel to Hulk, when subtle stuff in the movie clearly says the opposite (Ross mentions Banner's been on the run for 5 years is most telling, Banner in South America, etc.).
Guys, argue this all you want, I see TIH as a semi-sequel/semi-reboot, despite the director and cast's insistents that it's completely separate from Hulk.
I can totally see Warners doing something similar (like maybe a different story with Routh), it's not out of the question as Warners hasn't said anything recent aside from the vague "reintroduction of Superman" in the WSJ article.
??? TIH has a totally different origin for the Hulk than Hulk. It is maybe a sequel in spirit, but direct sequel it is not.
You must be one of those people that thought Batman begins was a prequel to Batman89.
t: You're a meanie, The Kid. Yeah, and Supes forever! 
), were ultimately *safe* movies.
