Superman Returns Was it really THAT bad?

[X-Maniac]

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.

Yes, possibly so. But risky to ignore the comics and to take the Donnerverse and yet do things that Donner's Superman wouldn't do. I think the end result - the odd editing, removal of Krypton sequence, quotes from Bosworth that 'they didn't know what they wanted' during the filming of the various sea rescue sequences, the preview screening for family and friends - indicate that Singer had lost his way during the filming of this mammoth project. It just doesn't hang together like it should.

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.

Well, you can have an Elseworld taking an existing world off at a totally new tangent, and you can have a total reimagining. There are various levels, depending where you veer off! The earlier you veer off from established continuity, the more the Elseworld. If Kal-El's ship lands on another inhabited world, that is more Elseworld than if Clark is still on Earth but became a policeman rather than a reporter.

I think the basic ideas in SR are okay. Superman going away to Krypton is a very interesting notion, and a chance (from a sci-fi/fantasy point of view) to see something with a wow factor. Lex's land scheme is somewhat repetitive - Lexcorp would have been better - but by no means awful. Jason is problematic considering people might consider him a product of the love scene in SR about which Lois has no memory - her realisation of it being Superman's child would indeed be a shock! One assumes either the amnesia wore off, or the child was conceived on another occasion.

In my view, I feel the execution of the story is where it went a bit wonky. I don't mean visual/cinematographic stuff (though it was rather dark and muted in the lighting), I mean the structuring of what was on screen.

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

Indeed, though he was acting by the fantasy rules of that era, 30 years ago, when the status quo was almost always re-established at the end of fantasy material. I've no problem with SR NOT using this old formula to undo everything at the end. Actions have consequences. And the consequences seemed reasonable, but some of the actions didn't! Notably, his not saying goodbye and the whole foggy backstory of the relationship/pregnancy etc.

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 think there were more Donner similarities than you name. An air rescue sequence after which he says flying is the safest way to travel, a rooftop rendezvous, a Lex land scheme. The look of the farm is insignificant, the theme song seems to be viewed as an essential part of the Superman legend (though I thought it immediately dated the film).

Smallville proves that Elseworld can work well. I think a little less Donner would have been better in SR.

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".

There would still be mystery and uncertainty, and a lot more emotion, if he had said goodbye and that he didn't know when, or even if, he would be back. He might have stayed at Krypton for a long time, he might have been killed by its radioactive remains, his ship might have failed and been unable to bring him home.

I know what you are saying about the drama...but they did film a Krypton exploration sequence and planned to show Lex sending Superman there, and there was originally a newspaper sequence with various stories questioning where Superman had gone, so they did consider a stronger backstory that makes more sense. Although not as much sense as Superman saying goodbye. I think what was shown ends up pushing the focus off Superman (the main focus is on Lex at first) and making him seem cold and selfish.

If you prefer that drama of him leaving silently for Krypton, vanishing without a word, then fine. How soon before Lois realised he was gone?

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 can get all that, yes; and he didn't seem aloof when hovering above earth, because he was watching over it and he did fly down to help. But he is aloof in the prologue when he silently vanishes - that's the set-up for the movie. And he does seem removed from happiness and involvement through the movie. He is somewhat at peace at the very end, but at the same time, also more removed than ever.

Do you relate to someone who is so perpetually alienated and alone? Don't you want to feel some happiness, to see him experience some of that?

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.

The problem was that Richard's humanity and dependability ends up contrasting with Superman, so that Richard seems more likable.

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.

I agree.

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 laidback doesn't sound too exciting to me - there will need to be drama and conflict from somewhere. And we definitely need to see a better Clark, moving towards the Dean Cain portrayal where it was understandable that he could hold down a job as a reporter on a large city newspaper.

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 heist) or is as campy.

Right. For me though, it didn't work.

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.

Lois and Jimmy can provide support for Clark. But surely we need some kind of infrastructure around Superman too. The only existing option is a stronger role for Martha. I think we need more than that.

 

[X-Maniac]

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.

Yes, I was aware that critics generally liked the movie. But, nonetheless, it opened modestly despite those positive reviews and it didn't soar to box office heights. So, does no one listen to critics? Or does no one believe critics? Or did people see the trailers and adverts and decide the critics were talking rubbish?

The movie needed to be more energetic. Hard to market SR as a dynamic movie when it isn't.

The mainstream does indeed want to be entertained but the trick is doing that as well as adding in art and depth. Entertainment and quality needn't be mutually exclusive. Especially if you are spending £209million. Otherwise, make a low-budget 'cult'/indie movie like The Fountain or Pan's Labyrinth. And even The Fountain didn't recoup its budget, due to a problematic production.

 

[buggs0268]

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

And who are you? Some new Excuse Crew member. Been here since 2004, and everything I ever said was going to happen with SR and it's sequel was right. So my track record is 100% on that.

And you guys are bring up reviews again. You have got to be an banned member. Too many similarities. Let's see if Excellsior can find out.

 

[Nightwing1977]

And who are you? Some new Excuse Crew member. Been here since 2004, and everything I ever said was going to happen with SR and it's sequel was right. So my track record is 100% on that.

LMAO!! You're incorrect on that the sequel isn't happening. You were so sure they were going to do a reboot, that you keep rambling on about a frickin' reboot when WB never said that was the plan. Guess what? We hear the sequel is happending & no reboot. You don't work for WB, so stop acting like you know it all 'cause you're lying about the damn "no sequel" talk. There is no reboot, so sorry you're not going to get what you demand for. You can't always get what you want, so deal with it & move on.

 

[mego joe]

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.

But if how he got to the beginning of the story is incongruent with the characterization of Superman- then the whole story is idiotic.

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.


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.


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.

Agreeing to disagree....

 

[buggs0268]

LMAO!! You're incorrect on that the sequel isn't happening. You were so sure they were going to do a reboot, that you keep rambling on about a frickin' reboot when WB never said that was the plan. Guess what? We hear the sequel is happending & no reboot. You don't work for WB, so stop acting like you know it all 'cause you're lying about the damn "no sequel" talk. There is no reboot, so sorry you're not going to get what you demand for. You can't always get what you want, so deal with it & move on.

Really. Rumor is that they may be doing a reboot. Variety keeps reporting it will be a reboot, and that Routh is gone. I will be very surprised if they do a direct sequel, or if Singer is even involved. I think they are going to go the way of The Incredible Hulk. Aren't you the same guy that swore up and down I was lying last spring when my boss got a call from his agent saying that the WB was actively contacting agencies about JLA, and swore up and down JLA woudl be in development hell for years.

And I never said I worked for the WB. I just know people who used to, and now people who know people.

 

[stargazer]

And who are you? Some new Excuse Crew member. Been here since 2004, and everything I ever said was going to happen with SR and it's sequel was right. So my track record is 100% on that.

And you guys are bring up reviews again. You have got to be an banned member. Too many similarities. Let's see if Excellsior can find out.

Why do I HAVE to be a banned member??!! Just because I happen to love SR and to disagree with your views? Come on! I have NEVER crossed the line or disrespected any one here. I'm a new member of this community and I follow the rules. And I'm not afraid of anything, any mod can check my ID number, I really have nothing to hide. And who are you? The owner of this forums? I can't believe this.

 

[stargazer]

And who are you? Some new Excuse Crew member. Been here since 2004, and everything I ever said was going to happen with SR and it's sequel was right. So my track record is 100% on that.

And you guys are bring up reviews again. You have got to be an banned member. Too many similarities. Let's see if Excellsior can find out.

Oh, and I forgot to tell you that I AM ALSO GOINT TO REPORT YOU to a mod. I think your conspiracy theories are too old already. You need to accept that there are MANY people who like SR, like I, and have the right to defend it.

 

[Showtime]

I checked out Mostpowerful, she doesn't match any previous known poster in this area of The Hype.

That being said this thread has officially derailed and I am closing it...for now.

 

[Showtime]

Reopening this thread. I'll be watching.

 

[Nightwing1977]

I checked out Mostpowerful, she doesn't match any previous known poster in this area of The Hype.

That being said this thread has officially derailed and I am closing it...for now.

*taps ST in the shoulders*

Uh....MP is a "she", not a "he".

Honestly, we need to have a new thing at SHH that show our gender's symbol. Like anyone who sign up has to click on if they're either male or female with how we keep mistaking some for a guy or girl.

 

[Showtime]

She PMed me and told me yesterday. My bad.

 

[El Payaso]

*taps ST in the shoulders*

Uh....MP is a "she", not a "he".

Honestly, we need to have a new thing at SHH that show our gender's symbol. Like anyone who sign up has to click on if they're either male or female with how we keep mistaking some for a guy or girl.

They could be quite some erotics symbols. I can picture.

 

[stargazer]

*taps ST in the shoulders*

Uh....MP is a "she", not a "he".

Honestly, we need to have a new thing at SHH that show our gender's symbol. Like anyone who sign up has to click on if they're either male or female with how we keep mistaking some for a guy or girl.

That's not really necessary. It's kinda fun to be mistaken as a guy, LOL. My life suddenly becomes 'mysterious and exciting.'

She PMed me and told me yesterday. My bad.

It's ok, really. No problem.

They could be quite some erotics symbols. I can picture.

LOL!

 

[Angeloz]

*taps ST in the shoulders*

Uh....MP is a "she", not a "he".

Honestly, we need to have a new thing at SHH that show our gender's symbol. Like anyone who sign up has to click on if they're either male or female with how we keep mistaking some for a guy or girl.

I'm with Mostpowerful in that I don't mind any mistakes in that area as most here are guys.

They could be quite some erotics symbols. I can picture.

LOL.

I like your thinking (but not really into stuff taking up more memory and it might be too naughty).

Angeloz

 

[Nightwing1977]

I'm with Mostpowerful in that I don't mind any mistakes in that area as most here are guys.

With a name like "Angeloz", it easy to tell you're a girl. I mean, what guy use "Angel" as part of their name? I know the only one to use Angel so far to me is Angel from X-Men.

And btw, Angeloz, even some of the fools at Singer's Superman Sucks blog mention SHH & call you a stupid dude with reading your posts here. LOL! I love to see what they're thinking now with not knowing that you're really a girl & all. They probably don't know what a girl is compare to a "dude".

 

[dr collossus]

I thought that the idea of an Internet community was that it pulled down the barriers of race, gender and nationality. In these forums, we are all supposed to be equal, and those that choose not to disclose their gender should have that right respected and have their views opinions treated with the same respect as everyone else.

That said, it is a little embarrasing knowing you've called a girl 'dude.'

 

[Angeloz]

With a name like "Angeloz", it easy to tell you're a girl. I mean, what guy use "Angel" as part of their name? I know the only one to use Angel so far to me is Angel from X-Men.

And btw, Angeloz, even some of the fools at Singer's Superman Sucks blog mention SHH & call you a stupid dude with reading your posts here. LOL! I love to see what they're thinking now with not knowing that you're really a girl & all. They probably don't know what a girl is compare to a "dude".

Ironically my username Angeloz comes from the character Angel in the Joss Whedon series with the same name (as well as "BTVS"). It's a play on Angel, Angelus and Oz (because I'm Australian although I liked the character of Oz too but it isn't why chose it). It came to me when I was tired years ago and first posted it on a Spoiler Board (probably 3 months later).

On the Singer's Superman Sucks blog I don't think I've ever read it. I might have clicked on it once 2 years ago out of curiosity. But if so it would of been for less than a minute. Weird to be known at a place I don't go to. Thanks for telling me though. I didn't know I was that well known elsewhere. Although when I finally joined here I did have a nice welcome. It made me like the place. And even those I disagree with have been respectful.

I thought that the idea of an Internet community was that it pulled down the barriers of race, gender and nationality. In these forums, we are all supposed to be equal, and those that choose not to disclose their gender should have that right respected and have their views opinions treated with the same respect as everyone else.

That said, it is a little embarrasing knowing you've called a girl 'dude.'

Don't worry about the "dude" thing as I know most people here a guys and so it's natural to expect the person is a male. I presume most females here understand that. So don't think you're disrespectful (I wouldn't at least). Also a lot of societies value males so it's hardly an insult (unfortunately true).

On the internet bringing down the walls and barriers. It can do that but it also can provide a haven and a way to be hateful and say hateful things. As it is largely anonymous. And somewhat safe from repercussion.

Angeloz

 

[GreenKToo]

Ironically my username Angeloz comes from the character Angel in the Joss Whedon series with the same name (as well as "BTVS"). It's a play on Angel, Angelus and Oz (because I'm Australian although I liked the character of Oz too but it isn't why chose it). It came to me when I was tired years ago and first posted it on a Spoiler Board (probably 3 months later).

On the Singer's Superman Sucks blog I don't think I've ever read it. I might have clicked on it once 2 years ago out of curiosity. But if so it would of been for less than a minute. Weird to be known at a place I don't go to. Thanks for telling me though. I didn't know I was that well known elsewhere. Although when I finally joined here I did have a nice welcome. It made me like the place. And even those I disagree with have been respectful.



Don't worry about the "dude" thing as I know most people here a guys and so it's natural to expect the person is a male. I presume most females here understand that. So don't think you're disrespectful (I wouldn't at least). Also a lot of societies value males so it's hardly an insult (unfortunately true).

On the internet bringing down the walls and barriers. It can do that but it also can provide a haven and a way to be hateful and say hateful things. As it is largely anonymous. And somewhat safe from repercussion.

Angeloz

Lol, I always life at those that insult and try to act tough on here. It makes my day.t:

 

[Nightwing1977]

Lol, I always life at those that insult and try to act tough on here. It makes my day.t:

Yep. Just because you insult & talk tough on the 'Net don't mean you are that tough. For all we know, it could be a fat guy with no muscles.

 

[Sawyer]

I wouldnt say Superman is bad as much as I would say it was a disappointment. It was just not good enough of a comeback for Supes. I would have enjoyed it if it was a bit more action packed and a little less of a romantic lovefest chickflick.

 

[dr collossus]

I wouldnt say Superman is bad as much as I would say it was a disappointment. It was just not good enough of a comeback for Supes. I would have enjoyed it if it was a bit more action packed and a little less of a romantic lovefest chickflick.

Bingo.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I wouldnt say Superman is bad as much as I would say it was a disappointment. It was just not good enough of a comeback for Supes. I would have enjoyed it if it was a bit more action packed and a little less of a romantic lovefest chickflick.

Lovefest? LOL...

 

[solidsnake86]

I don't think it was that bad either, It was disappointing in that there wasn't some big showdown, but everything in the movie was not far from what the superman character is. The deviating from the comics is a moot point because the comics don't even know what he's supossed to be. There are so many takes that its impossible to please all the fans. Look at how many people are upset with the return of Zod in the comics, saying he should be dead and superman should literally be the last son of krypton.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I don't think it was that bad either, It was disappointing in that there wasn't some big showdown, but everything in the movie was not far from what the superman character is. The deviating from the comics is a moot point because the comics don't even know what he's supossed to be. There are so many takes that its impossible to please all the fans. Look at how many people are upset with the return of Zod in the comics, saying he should be dead and superman should literally be the last son of krypton.

Agreed with everything but the first few comments, i didnt find SR, or its lack of a showdown, to be dissapoint at all. But you are right about the comics, I have read Superman stories from all era's, and he is never portrayed consistently from one to the other, and the comment about SR not adhering to the comics are false anyway, when i read Superman comics, i see the Superman in SR, and vice-versa, not to mention there were strong nods to 'Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow,' a story i annoyingly cant get my hands on.