Superman Returns Was it really THAT bad?

[X-Maniac]

From the reviews I read on SR (by the critics and GP), noone complained about Superman not saying goodbye to Lois, Jason's existance, or the "suit." The main complain was that it was too long and that Superman didn't punch anybody. Most people don't care as much as fanboys about all the details, they just want to be entertained. And by the reviews, most people enjoyed the movie.

P.S. And don't forget that in S2, Superman also kills Zod, and allows Ursa and Non to die. And people cheered at it back in the day!!

Interesting points. I had a look at the Metacritic site to see what people disliked about SR.

On the critics' reviews (which were overall a positive score of 72 out of 100), there were complaints about running time and about the movie being 'dull', someone said Routh was a 'dull impersonation' of Reeve, another said it was a 'dull, uninspiring film that combines pedestrian acting, lackluster special effects and deadly pace with a pseudo-religious theme', another moaned about the real-estate scheme, another said the main characters were too glum ('When the hero, his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?' - Ebert), another said: The bigger problem is that Singer’s weighty rhythms are disastrous for Superman.

The Metacritics' users score (from the public) was 5.7 out of 10. Criticisms here were: boring, lacking charm and wit, Superman lacked courage and moral values, Superman too soft-spoken, Lois dishonest, love triangle is weak, climax is underwhelming, Bosworth is a poor Lois, Richard is decent but dull, and: 'Emotional development and brooding is all very well, but this is still Superman we're dealing with here, and Singer never really puts him through the paces.'

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/supermanreturns?q=Superman Returns

It's interesting to see that the critics mostly didn't mention the characterisations, but the users did!

The critics were more concerned with the length, weightiness and dullness. The users were more critical of characterisation and character dynamics.

At a quick scan through the summaries of the reviews, no one seems to have criticised the costume or Jason, though one user mentioned Superman's values (which are part of the criticism over him not saying goodbye).

I'm not trying to prove anything here; i just thought it interesting to see what a wider number of people said.

 

[stargazer]

I can see the logic in that. But how do you think he went into it?



Perhaps, but it becomes more and more like one of those 'What if..' comicbooks that are, ultimately, not part of the main picture.

I think Singer 'fell between two stools' here, in trying to create something different but then being somewhat shackled by the Donner world. Hence some people complaining that it seems the same Superman as in the Donner movies yet behaving out of character from that Donner version.

But, if some people enjoyed Singer's vision, then so be it. The critics liked it, the audience was moderately interested (though not champing at the bit), the online community is divided as hell.

I think a bigger revamp, rather than one with Donner trappings, would have helped.



I don't recall the tears, but I accept this argument.




If he left earth for Krypton, which would mean at least five years' absence, and possibly that he'd be gone for longer than Lois's lifespan, then he must have accepted that Lois would move on. She might even have died in the meantime, while he was away. So might Martha. To come back to earth and expect things to be the same, or to be able to pick up where he left off, was remarkably short-sighted. And what if he'd been gone longer? It's very childish behaviour - 'I'll do what the hell I like, and when I come back, I expect everything to be the same, and everyone waiting for me.'

I think the character looks far better, and more relatable, if he says goodbye to Lois and gives an explanation that gives some closure to the anxieties over his leaving. It would mean he'd done all he could to be honest and caring.

But, again, if you can understand (and relate to) and accept his behaviour, then that's fine.



It was indeed meant to be a joke. The pay-off where the dog brings back the ball was edited out of the movie and would have made the joke far better. As it stood, it made him look like he could do something mean to someone/something close to him and just walk away from it.

Saving the plane was great; it was heroic. The plummeting plane was something he didn't cause but which he stopped, so it was purely heroic. What he did later was also in keeping with what we expect of Superman. But I found it hard to care for someone who didn't say goodbye and who was this distant, aloof figure. Singer didn't make him relatable, as far as I could see; he made him quite unrelatable. However, I felt something for him when he was drowning and Lois pulled him out of the sea - I felt sorry for him.



I'll accept this possibility, even though I feel it's a little convenient that Lois so quickly chanced upon (and dragged into bed!) a man who resembled Superman. What you say sounds reasonable as an interpretation. It's just a shame that I felt more empathy with Richard than with Superman.



I agree that the movie could have dealt with this in a little more detail and that the gist of it is as you describe. Do you think there would need to be a hint of life signs on the planetary remains for Superman to truly make that journey, as the planet blew up (and was irradiated by Kryptonite) thousands of years ago?



So all he truly has left is Martha Kent, who won't last for ever. A subsequent movie will have to rebuild an infrastructure around him - other, new characters perhaps? How would you see Superman's journey continuing?



Right. But I did feel something was terribly wrong with the movie opening with that somewhat hammy scene of Lex swindling the old woman (though I laughed when he finished off her signature) and the kid screaming when he threw his wig. It didn't feel quite right.



I really didn't feel that he had any neurosis/sadness about Krypton or about having other Kryptonians around, after so long living as a human on earth. But I understand your reasoning as a possible interpretation.



We would surely need other characters to fulfil the usual archetypes of storytelling. What about romance? Moral support/guidance? Friendship? Who will offer these things so he doesn't feel as alone, if not more so, than before?

Yes, Superman had tearful eyes in that scene. Watch carefully, it's quite moving.

Remember that Clark told Jimmy at the bar, he said "look at Lois, a woman like that, I never thought she would settle down." Remember in STM when Lois tells Clark that she was not interested in a married life or having children (the scene when she is about to enter the elevator and talks about her sister, I think. She says she would go bananas). Superman really thought that Lois would never settle down, it seems. She was too much of a career woman and marriage would be in her way.

And yes, saying goodbye to Lois would have been the right thing to do, however, as it was in the film, it helped for great and more interesting drama, IMO. I like it, a lot.

Honestly, I find nothing wrong with the opening scene of Lex and the dying Gertrude. I thought it was a throw-away comic booky reference. It was fun, while setting Lex's character as a cold and sinister son of a *****.

I understand Superman wanting to investigate about the possibility of finding survivors from his home planet. It is part of his alienation. He'd want to find people just like him, and a place where he could be as normal as the rest, why not? Plus, Jor-El told him Krypton had exploded, but what if Jor-El was wrong?

 

[stargazer]

I can see the logic in that. But how do you think he went into it?



Perhaps, but it becomes more and more like one of those 'What if..' comicbooks that are, ultimately, not part of the main picture.

I think Singer 'fell between two stools' here, in trying to create something different but then being somewhat shackled by the Donner world. Hence some people complaining that it seems the same Superman as in the Donner movies yet behaving out of character from that Donner version.

But, if some people enjoyed Singer's vision, then so be it. The critics liked it, the audience was moderately interested (though not champing at the bit), the online community is divided as hell.

I think a bigger revamp, rather than one with Donner trappings, would have helped.



I don't recall the tears, but I accept this argument.




If he left earth for Krypton, which would mean at least five years' absence, and possibly that he'd be gone for longer than Lois's lifespan, then he must have accepted that Lois would move on. She might even have died in the meantime, while he was away. So might Martha. To come back to earth and expect things to be the same, or to be able to pick up where he left off, was remarkably short-sighted. And what if he'd been gone longer? It's very childish behaviour - 'I'll do what the hell I like, and when I come back, I expect everything to be the same, and everyone waiting for me.'

I think the character looks far better, and more relatable, if he says goodbye to Lois and gives an explanation that gives some closure to the anxieties over his leaving. It would mean he'd done all he could to be honest and caring.

But, again, if you can understand (and relate to) and accept his behaviour, then that's fine.



It was indeed meant to be a joke. The pay-off where the dog brings back the ball was edited out of the movie and would have made the joke far better. As it stood, it made him look like he could do something mean to someone/something close to him and just walk away from it.

Saving the plane was great; it was heroic. The plummeting plane was something he didn't cause but which he stopped, so it was purely heroic. What he did later was also in keeping with what we expect of Superman. But I found it hard to care for someone who didn't say goodbye and who was this distant, aloof figure. Singer didn't make him relatable, as far as I could see; he made him quite unrelatable. However, I felt something for him when he was drowning and Lois pulled him out of the sea - I felt sorry for him.



I'll accept this possibility, even though I feel it's a little convenient that Lois so quickly chanced upon (and dragged into bed!) a man who resembled Superman. What you say sounds reasonable as an interpretation. It's just a shame that I felt more empathy with Richard than with Superman.



I agree that the movie could have dealt with this in a little more detail and that the gist of it is as you describe. Do you think there would need to be a hint of life signs on the planetary remains for Superman to truly make that journey, as the planet blew up (and was irradiated by Kryptonite) thousands of years ago?



So all he truly has left is Martha Kent, who won't last for ever. A subsequent movie will have to rebuild an infrastructure around him - other, new characters perhaps? How would you see Superman's journey continuing?



Right. But I did feel something was terribly wrong with the movie opening with that somewhat hammy scene of Lex swindling the old woman (though I laughed when he finished off her signature) and the kid screaming when he threw his wig. It didn't feel quite right.



I really didn't feel that he had any neurosis/sadness about Krypton or about having other Kryptonians around, after so long living as a human on earth. But I understand your reasoning as a possible interpretation.



We would surely need other characters to fulfil the usual archetypes of storytelling. What about romance? Moral support/guidance? Friendship? Who will offer these things so he doesn't feel as alone, if not more so, than before?

Interesting points. I had a look at the Metacritic site to see what people disliked about SR.

On the critics' reviews (which were overall a positive score of 72 out of 100), there were complaints about running time and about the movie being 'dull', someone said Routh was a 'dull impersonation' of Reeve, another said it was a 'dull, uninspiring film that combines pedestrian acting, lackluster special effects and deadly pace with a pseudo-religious theme', another moaned about the real-estate scheme, another said the main characters were too glum ('When the hero, his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?' - Ebert), another said: The bigger problem is that Singer’s weighty rhythms are disastrous for Superman.

The Metacritics' users score (from the public) was 5.7 out of 10. Criticisms here were: boring, lacking charm and wit, Superman lacked courage and moral values, Superman too soft-spoken, Lois dishonest, love triangle is weak, climax is underwhelming, Bosworth is a poor Lois, Richard is decent but dull, and: 'Emotional development and brooding is all very well, but this is still Superman we're dealing with here, and Singer never really puts him through the paces.'

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/supermanreturns?q=Superman Returns

It's interesting to see that the critics mostly didn't mention the characterisations, but the users did!

The critics were more concerned with the length, weightiness and dullness. The users were more critical of characterisation and character dynamics.

At a quick scan through the summaries of the reviews, no one seems to have criticised the costume or Jason, though one user mentioned Superman's values (which are part of the criticism over him not saying goodbye).

I'm not trying to prove anything here; i just thought it interesting to see what a wider number of people said.

I need to go now, but I'll be back to respond to this post.

 

[skruloos]

I can see the logic in that. But how do you think he went into it?

Honestly? I don't know how he went into it. My hope would be that he went into it wanting to tell a story he believed in and related to.

Perhaps, but it becomes more and more like one of those 'What if..' comicbooks that are, ultimately, not part of the main picture.

Isn't that what an Elseworld ultimately is though? They HAVE no part of the main picture. They exist outside of the normal comic continuity.

I think Singer 'fell between two stools' here, in trying to create something different but then being somewhat shackled by the Donner world. Hence some people complaining that it seems the same Superman as in the Donner movies yet behaving out of character from that Donner version.

This is arguable, I think. Superman in the Donner-verse certainly wasn't a saint.

I think a bigger revamp, rather than one with Donner trappings, would have helped.

I think it could have gone either way. The Donner and Reeve stuff really set the bar high for a lot of people, more so than Batman and its resulting films. That coupled with Smallville on television, I think Singer fell into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. The way I see it, despite the look of the farm, the theme song and the use of the FOS, Singer's movie isn't too much like Donner's. The set design is very different. Spacey isn't nearly as campy as Hackman. The overall look and feel are completely different. It definitely borrows a lot of elements from Donner, don't get me wrong, but I see it as a different beast from it. But you're right, because of those few similarities, people were bound to relate it to Donner.

I don't recall the tears, but I accept this argument.

That is cause celebre.

If he left earth for Krypton, which would mean at least five years' absence, and possibly that he'd be gone for longer than Lois's lifespan, then he must have accepted that Lois would move on. She might even have died in the meantime, while he was away. So might Martha. To come back to earth and expect things to be the same, or to be able to pick up where he left off, was remarkably short-sighted. And what if he'd been gone longer? It's very childish behaviour - 'I'll do what the hell I like, and when I come back, I expect everything to be the same, and everyone waiting for me.'

Yes it's childish but it's also human. Who hasn't done something like that and hoped things would still be the same back home? Of course, they never are but it doesn't stop us from hoping. I would say that if he came back and tried to make things the same, THAT would be childish and immature. But that's not what he does.

I think the character looks far better, and more relatable, if he says goodbye to Lois and gives an explanation that gives some closure to the anxieties over his leaving. It would mean he'd done all he could to be honest and caring.

True. But you also get no immediate drama of when he returns. It's too pat, no dramatic catalyst. It also starts shortens your characters potential character arc. Firs thing they teach you in screenwriting is to "raise the stakes".

It was indeed meant to be a joke. The pay-off where the dog brings back the ball was edited out of the movie and would have made the joke far better. As it stood, it made him look like he could do something mean to someone/something close to him and just walk away from it.

Again, I guess I can see that interpretation if you're really nitpicking a throwaway joke.

Saving the plane was great; it was heroic. The plummeting plane was something he didn't cause but which he stopped, so it was purely heroic. What he did later was also in keeping with what we expect of Superman. But I found it hard to care for someone who didn't say goodbye and who was this distant, aloof figure. Singer didn't make him relatable, as far as I could see; he made him quite unrelatable. However, I felt something for him when he was drowning and Lois pulled him out of the sea - I felt sorry for him.

That's what I'm saying about letting something that occurs in the exposition to completely color and taint the rest of the story. Because at no point is he even portrayed to be aloof. I mean, let's take the most obvious metaphor. He goes above the earth, which would be an obvious indicator of "aloofness", and what does he do? Immediately flies back down to help one of the people he is "above". I don't see him as aloof at all in any of these sequences. I see him as this person who flies above us, ready to be amongst us to save us from ourselves at any point. At the same time, I see him a person who isn't quite human and yet tries his hardest to protect us and live among us.

I'll accept this possibility, even though I feel it's a little convenient that Lois so quickly chanced upon (and dragged into bed!) a man who resembled Superman. What you say sounds reasonable as an interpretation. It's just a shame that I felt more empathy with Richard than with Superman.

I can see that. Life is convenient when you want it to be. My best friend dated and slept with a person exactly like her ex a month after they broke up. It was eerie. And this has happened more times with other people, me included, then I can count.

I think the empathy part, though, was to get us into the Lois character. Or at least, that's how I took it. I was glad they did that. They didn't make Richard to be a jerk or terrible to her. It made it an honest situation where Lois was with a nice guy.

I agree that the movie could have dealt with this in a little more detail and that the gist of it is as you describe. Do you think there would need to be a hint of life signs on the planetary remains for Superman to truly make that journey, as the planet blew up (and was irradiated by Kryptonite) thousands of years ago?

Not necessarily. What I think would have been more effective is if Luthor was completely behind the finding of Krypton. He could have doctored the information to make it seem like there might be survivors or something. That would have been the icing on the cake for me.

So all he truly has left is Martha Kent, who won't last for ever. A subsequent movie will have to rebuild an infrastructure around him - other, new characters perhaps? How would you see Superman's journey continuing?

You're putting me on the spot here. I see it going back to a laid back atmosphere I think. No "relationship/sexual tension" baggage with Lois. I think they can go to a friendly competition at the Planet. Possibly develop a deep friendship, deeper than before, because there isn't the "relationship" thing hanging over their head. I think it opens up more possibilities for Jimmy, since more screentime can be devoted to him. I also think they can use the time to really build on a good villain. I think it will be refreshing to have a movie that doesn't have to rely on a relationship to carry the emotional weight through the film.

Right. But I did feel something was terribly wrong with the movie opening with that somewhat hammy scene of Lex swindling the old woman (though I laughed when he finished off her signature) and the kid screaming when he threw his wig. It didn't feel quite right.

I agree. I think this was kind of a bridge from the Donner Lex into Singer's Lex. Because after that, you notice that Lex no longer wears the wig (except for the museum hype) or is as campy.

We would surely need other characters to fulfil the usual archetypes of storytelling. What about romance? Moral support/guidance? Friendship? Who will offer these things so he doesn't feel as alone, if not more so, than before?

I don't see why Lois and Jimmy can't provide his moral support/guidance. The one thing that really changes is the romance aspect, but as I said above, I don't think it's necessary (and frankly I'm getting sick of romance stories being shoehorned into most movies). Like I said, when you take the romance out of the equation, you automatically make it easier for a better, deeper friendship to develop between Clark and Lois.

 

[buggs0268]

lol, got any screenshots to help me understand that, cuz you just confused me

just watch the shot where ma kent actually opens the door of the truck and gets out. after the door opens you see some legs come out, and then the legs all of a sudden are back in and come out again. you really don't even have to turn up the brightness if you are using an HD TV.

 

[buggs0268]

OMG GAIS! IZ BAD CUZ DEY HAV LEGZ IN 1 SHOOT N DEN DIFFER LEGZ IN NOTHER!!1!1!

You pointing out this is funny because it show how much your willing to examine a film to hate it.

No I am not. It is a cardinal sin of a big budget movie to have it. And no it is not different legs in another shot. it is the same shot. they just extended the shot by using two takes, but they don't paint out the legs when they come out on the first shot. The legs come out and then all of a sudden come back out again in the same shot.

 

[buggs0268]

As people have pointed out I don't think you're in the right frame of mind watching the film. You might have to give it ten years. That said some films just rub some up the wrong way. Due to personal taste and preferences. So you may never be cured of Returnophobia.

Angeloz

Ahh no. A bad stinking edit is a bad stinking edit. And when a big budget film, that can pay one guy to paint out the legs in the first take of the two cuts they spliced together to make the shot longer when it is so easy and cheap to do, is what is known as a cardinal sin in editing. They didn't even darken the frame. they just sliced two takes of the same shot together.

 

[buggs0268]

*cough*nitpicker*cough*

Ah sure. I guess I was nitpicking about the budget or the bad box office take. Or about the fact that SR fans used to love to quote how much it was loved on the imdb boards till I pointed out that 95 percent of the user comments are how much people hate the film, or how much it stinks. But then you guys have a built in excuse. Only people that hate that movie in question will comment there. Funny how they it is a phenomenon only to SR on IMDB. The "Excuse Crew" has returned. Well, only to go away when they find out the WB is going to do a reboot.

 

[buggs0268]

Wasting money to fix a jump cut? It's a simple jump cut. Flubs like that happen in EVERY film. Next thing you're going to tell me is they should have recut it because Lois' cigarette wasn't the exact same length between shots.

How did you make it out of Kindergarten? How do you get across the street on your own?

It isn't a jump cut. It is they wanted to extend the shot, so they spliced two takes of the same shot from the same angle, very badly. And yes they should have fixed it instead of leaving it in there. And wasting money. There is a 10 million dollar scene on the floor. How is that for waste. The film cost over 60 million more than budgeted. I think there was already money wasting going on in that film and in his new film. Hell, why not waste it on actually fixing something.

What cracks me up about you guys is that you are so religious about this film. No one can point out any screw ups about it or it is like heresy to you guys. I mean you guys literally take such offense to it even when it is obviously real and anyone can plop in the damn DVD and see it for themselves. It is like I came into your house and shot your dog or something.

"oh no. Don't point out the plot hole/inconsistency of Kryptonite in the film" "Oh no, don't point out the fact that Jor El states that he has been dead for thousands of years, meaning it took Kal El thousands of years to get to earth but it takes him only 5 to go back there and come back in the same technology ship"

 

[Angeloz]

I guess I'm lucky I don't have a dog then. Although I hope you're not including me. I'll admit I'm just not into editing. I also accept old style models in films and television that are wobbly. If it works or is understandable then I'm not fussed.

Angeloz

 

[skruloos]

How did you make it out of Kindergarten? How do you get across the street on your own?

It isn't a jump cut. It is they wanted to extend the shot, so they spliced two takes of the same shot from the same angle, very badly. And yes they should have fixed it instead of leaving it in there. And wasting money. There is a 10 million dollar scene on the floor. How is that for waste. The film cost over 60 million more than budgeted. I think there was already money wasting going on in that film and in his new film. Hell, why not waste it on actually fixing something.

What cracks me up about you guys is that you are so religious about this film. No one can point out any screw ups about it or it is like heresy to you guys. I mean you guys literally take such offense to it even when it is obviously real and anyone can plop in the damn DVD and see it for themselves. It is like I came into your house and shot your dog or something.

"oh no. Don't point out the plot hole/inconsistency of Kryptonite in the film" "Oh no, don't point out the fact that Jor El states that he has been dead for thousands of years, meaning it took Kal El thousands of years to get to earth but it takes him only 5 to go back there and come back in the same technology ship"

I have no problems with you bringing up screw ups in the movie. I even acknowledge that it is part of ANY film. However, the fact that you propose to waste even more money on an shot that doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things is ridiculous. It's no more offensive or distracting then a continuity error. You only even notice something like that on home video or after repeated viewings.

 

[MAN O STEEL]

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=9-x7biIKTkk

 

[StylishHokie21]

People are narrowminded just because they don't like the movie?

 

[buggs0268]

I have no problems with you bringing up screw ups in the movie. I even acknowledge that it is part of ANY film. However, the fact that you propose to waste even more money on an shot that doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things is ridiculous. It's no more offensive or distracting then a continuity error. You only even notice something like that on home video or after repeated viewings.

So all of the other films that have had that kind of thing and fixed it them were just going overboard? I give up. You guys are so entrenched in your bias on this film.

 

[mego joe]

There is still no truth he is a deadbeat dad. How can one be a deadbeat dad when he didn't know Lois was preggy before he left? You're not a deadbeat dad if you left & not know someone you love was preggy. Since he return & found out he is a dad, he is going to watch over his son. I guess the ending of him knowing he is a father & visit him in his room make him a deadbeat dad, when it isn't. Come on, there is no proof he is a deadbeat dad. I know you & several hate SR, but don't make excuse hating the film with calling him a deadbeat dad when he isn't. If you don't know someone you love is preggy when you left, you're not a deadbeat dad. And that is fact.

I think you can be a deadbeat dad even if you don't know. In this case he didn't bother to act as if he even cared if she WAS pregnant. If the thought had ever crossed his mind he WOULD have at least bothered to say goodbye, right?

The fact is he is a father and he's not fulfiling his responsibilities as a father to Jason. SOunds like a deadbeat to me.

But for the sake of argument, how about a deadbeat boyfriend then? Unable to fulfill his responsibilities as a boyfriend?

 

[Angeloz]

I think you can be a deadbeat dad even if you don't know. In this case he didn't bother to act as if he even cared if she WAS pregnant. If the thought had ever crossed his mind he WOULD have at least bothered to say goodbye, right?

The fact is he is a father and he's not fulfiling his responsibilities as a father to Jason. SOunds like a deadbeat to me.

But for the sake of argument, how about a deadbeat boyfriend then? Unable to fulfill his responsibilities as a boyfriend?

How do you know that the amnesia kiss didn't include him as a twist.

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

How do you know that the amnesia kiss didn't include him as a twist.

Angeloz

You mean he forgot he had sex with Lois? THat would have actually been funny!

 

[mego joe]

True. But you also get no immediate drama of when he returns. It's too pat, no dramatic catalyst. It also starts shortens your characters potential character arc. Firs thing they teach you in screenwriting is to "raise the stakes".

I disagree. If he said goodbye and Lois still moved on with Richard it is even more dramatic b/c there it is less cliched. You would get the sense that she REALLY moved on and just didn't get entangled with RIchard on the rebound and stayed b/c she thought Richard was her baby daddy. Plus, if Superman had done EVERYTHING for Lois's sake, her moving on truly makes SUperman a character worthy of the viewers empaty. When Superman's potrayed as a jerk it really doesn't stir up feelings of empathy for him. For Lois, Jason and RIchard yes, for Superman no.

Instead of him having to realize that when you make a mistake you have to live with negative consequences it becomes a much tougher lesson- Even when you do the right thing you sometimes have to live with negative consequences. Seeing Superman face that would truly have been a mature storyline. But the cliches and childish/ adolescent travails of SR are just out of place for a story about a mature responsible adult.

 

[skruloos]

So all of the other films that have had that kind of thing and fixed it them were just going overboard? I give up. You guys are so entrenched in your bias on this film.

No. What I'm saying is that MANY films have errors like that and don't fix them. In the long run, they are very insignificant. It's not a major plot point. It's not even all that distracting. Why waste effects money on something that insignificant? Like you said, they were already over budget. The effects houses were already busting their asses on the major FX shots. And then you want to add another scene on top of that? Just a waste of time and money to fix an insignificant scene.

 

[skruloos]

I disagree. If he said goodbye and Lois still moved on with Richard it is even more dramatic b/c there it is less cliched. You would get the sense that she REALLY moved on and just didn't get entangled with RIchard on the rebound and stayed b/c she thought Richard was her baby daddy. Plus, if Superman had done EVERYTHING for Lois's sake, her moving on truly makes SUperman a character worthy of the viewers empaty. When Superman's potrayed as a jerk it really doesn't stir up feelings of empathy for him. For Lois, Jason and RIchard yes, for Superman no.

And maybe I'm not hung up on an even that happens outside of the film. Instead, I jump in at the beginning, I see Superman and that's he's made a mistake, and I watch as he learns his lessons. I see the arc he had. Him leaving with everything pat and coming back with the same reaction would not be nearly as impactful. It reeks of contrivance. You make it a plot point. This way the drama is created by the characters. In my book, character driven drama always outweighs drama created by the contrivances of a plot. The way it is in the film as it is, Richard is less of a plot device.

Instead of him having to realize that when you make a mistake you have to live with negative consequences it becomes a much tougher lesson- Even when you do the right thing you sometimes have to live with negative consequences. Seeing Superman face that would truly have been a mature storyline.

Sorry. No. In my opinion, lessons on personal responsibility are much tougher. When you have no one else to blame but yourself. Hard lesson. And a more mature storyline? I don't think so.

But the cliches and childish/ adolescent travails of SR are just out of place for a story about a mature responsible adult.

Try judging the story based on what it is not what you wish it was. The story is about an adult who has made mistakes. It happens in every day life all the time. Apparently you are a perfect individual who has never faltered. But in most cases on the real world, it happens.

Frankly, the story idea you propose? Boring. Cut and dry. Lacking personal investment and inherent drama. Talk about cliche. Paved with good intentions and all that? Please.

And I thought we agreed to disagree.

 

[spark627]

I just re-watched SR for the second time, it is much better than I remember. I really like Brandon Routh as Superman, though I think he is much better as Clark. The only thing that bothers me is obviously Superkid and the fact that Superman raised the kryptonite filled island, he shouldn't have been able to do that... but whatever.

 

[El Payaso]

I just re-watched SR for the second time, it is much better than I remember. I really like Brandon Routh as Superman, though I think he is much better as Clark. The only thing that bothers me is obviously Superkid and the fact that Superman raised the kryptonite filled island, he shouldn't have been able to do that... but whatever.

About the island thing, I think re-loading his powers with the sun energy is what allowed him to lift the island. The island was Kryptonite on the core but it had some thick rock protection which elped Superman to carry it towards the space.

When the chunks fo Kryptonite came to the surface, Supes was affected and fell.

But well, in this franchise things like that happens. Superman couldn't catch two missiles accross America but suddenly he was able to surround Earth many times per second. And Clark was able to go from USA to the Arctic by foot. And of course, a pair of glasses on Superman's face fool everybody.

People are narrowminded just because they don't like the movie?

Actually the other way around?

 

[buggs0268]

No. What I'm saying is that MANY films have errors like that and don't fix them. In the long run, they are very insignificant. It's not a major plot point. It's not even all that distracting. Why waste effects money on something that insignificant? Like you said, they were already over budget. The effects houses were already busting their asses on the major FX shots. And then you want to add another scene on top of that? Just a waste of time and money to fix an insignificant scene.

And the "excuse Crew" continues.

 

[stargazer]

Interesting points. I had a look at the Metacritic site to see what people disliked about SR.

On the critics' reviews (which were overall a positive score of 72 out of 100), there were complaints about running time and about the movie being 'dull', someone said Routh was a 'dull impersonation' of Reeve, another said it was a 'dull, uninspiring film that combines pedestrian acting, lackluster special effects and deadly pace with a pseudo-religious theme', another moaned about the real-estate scheme, another said the main characters were too glum ('When the hero, his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?' - Ebert), another said: The bigger problem is that Singer’s weighty rhythms are disastrous for Superman.

The Metacritics' users score (from the public) was 5.7 out of 10. Criticisms here were: boring, lacking charm and wit, Superman lacked courage and moral values, Superman too soft-spoken, Lois dishonest, love triangle is weak, climax is underwhelming, Bosworth is a poor Lois, Richard is decent but dull, and: 'Emotional development and brooding is all very well, but this is still Superman we're dealing with here, and Singer never really puts him through the paces.'

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/supermanreturns?q=Superman Returns

It's interesting to see that the critics mostly didn't mention the characterisations, but the users did!

The critics were more concerned with the length, weightiness and dullness. The users were more critical of characterisation and character dynamics.

At a quick scan through the summaries of the reviews, no one seems to have criticised the costume or Jason, though one user mentioned Superman's values (which are part of the criticism over him not saying goodbye).

I'm not trying to prove anything here; i just thought it interesting to see what a wider number of people said.

Well sure, it's obvious that some people didn't like the movie, but most people did, especially Brandon. I think, based on the reviews and awards he received, he was liked/loved in the role and accepted as a worthy succesor of wearing the red cape and boots. And I agree, to me he was the best part of the movie.

Total Film named him Breakout Star of the year, and named SR best movie of the year (where many thousands of people voted). Empire magazine also gave SR 5 stars, and named Routh Best Newcomer (and again many thousands of people voted). Voters obviously loved Routh in the role. The reviewers of both magazines said he was terrific as Superman/Clark Kent, that he was the greatest victory (best cast member) and that he even added his own melancolic touch as Superman.

According to rottentomatoes.com, SR got a score of 77%

243 reviews/critics
-fresh 190
-rotten 57

2182 reviews/community gave a score of 75%



Peter Travers, from Rolling Stones magazine liked SR and Brandon Routh, and said he and Bryan had what it takes to reinvent this icon. He said Superman returned with a bang.

Richard Corliss, from Time magazine said that SR was beyond super, that it was superb.
I love his review and agree with it totally:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1205367-2,00.html/

James Berardinelly, from Reelviews said "SR is near the top, if not at the top of the superhero movie pile":
http://www.reelviews.net/movies/s/superman_returns.html


And there are soo many more great reviews on SR, but this are some of my favorites. Also, I think that the harcore Smallville fans who obviously were never going to like the movie, complained very loudly, same for some post-crisis comic fans. I could tell by their comments. The mainstream just wants to be intertained, they don't care much about all the details as fans do. Just give them lots of action, and explotions, and even if the story is not really good, most of them are happy.

 

[stargazer]

So all of the other films that have had that kind of thing and fixed it them were just going overboard? I give up. You guys are so entrenched in your bias on this film.

And YOU are not?! LOL, everybody is biased! Haters and Lovers.

I just re-watched SR for the second time, it is much better than I remember. I really like Brandon Routh as Superman, though I think he is much better as Clark. The only thing that bothers me is obviously Superkid and the fact that Superman raised the kryptonite filled island, he shouldn't have been able to do that... but whatever.

Nice to hear!

I have no problem with that scene at all, love it!

The way I see it is that Superman went deep under the island and made sure to have a thick layer of sea bed ground between the kryptonite and him. Plus the solar recharge helped him a great deal. Still, he struggled a lot (Brandon's acting sold it for me) since he was still hurt from his encounter with Lex, but he gave it all his strength and determination and could lift it out into space on time, but it took everything he had. It's clear that it was Not an easy thing for him to do, he fell uncouncious back to Earth, and almost died. I think it was very emotional and epic.