Superman Returns Was it Routh, or the story that made you dislike the film?

[Arach Knight]

Forgive me if I am eons late by internet standards, but I only recently (as of right now) returned to actively posting on Superhero Hype. As it were though, in my leave of absence (once again caused by utter frustration with Marvel) I have found myself taking a shine to DC once again. So i've been on quite the kick...from a Justice League marathon, to a few new graphic novels for myself. In the process, I rewatched Batman Begins, constantly questioning why it is, that I don't own it on DVD yet. That is when another idea came to mind. Will I ever purchase or rewatch Superman Returns?

I saw the movie on 4th of July. I had my own nagging doubts, but I still had faith that it had to be better than the last two Donnerverse films. Needless to say, I left the theatre disappointed for all of the same reasons as everybody else. Some how though, I can't shake the feeling that I should be watching it again, to give it another shot. To re-evaluate the process. Part of me wants to think that I just didn't approve of Routh's emo-esque Superman. Then part of me realizes that giving Lois Lane a child, by the man of steel no less, was the single worst decision in a comic movie, since making George Clooney into Batman (seriously).

Routh wasn't necessarily a bad choice. I can see the potential...so i'd rather blame his portrayal on Singer....but I just never felt the synergy, like when so many other men have filled the role (both Reeves, Cain and Welling). So what is it that botheres you about the film? Is it Routh? Is is the story? Or perhaps it is neither, and you just hate Bryan Singer for ever messing with the DC universe. But please, do share your view on the matter.

 

[nogster]

story.
i thought routh did a fine job. although i think he looked too young. more like a superboy than a superman. but with the script he was given he was as much like superman as he couldve been.
the story was the let down. this was definatley not the superman film i was expecting to get and thats because the decisions made in regards to the storyarchs.
i wanted to love this film and be a proud owner of the dvd. but i cannot add this to my collection.
its JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

 

[Kid_Kaos]

Second that.

 

[The Kid]

Yeah you are so late. I can hardly remember everything anymore.

uh.. Routh, no problem with him except that awkward stiff acting in the beginning but no... can't say much else bugged me. He was well enough later, though of course basically stood around doing nothing as clark and turned into cgi a few times as supes, then in the end repeated brando and flew away. well I just remember leaving scratching my head saying "well the kid was cool..."

People's main gripes revolve around Lois and Supes relationship being very... uh... complicated now I think, and of course superman being more depressed than super, and the way singer has superman just not use his sueprvison to check to see if krypton's still there, and just leave expecting lois to not be mad because he's stupid (honestly this didn't work for me either...).

the movie was very weird to me, and it's funny because I love those weird movies that have random stuff happen and beautiful imagery, but this was ironically super weird . Like for example...Yeah we know superman parallels jesus in some ways, but don't beat us over the head with it. I prefer when it's more subtle.

The vague history idea makes my head spin... because I don't think it was necessary. The film seemed like it was only half following stm and stm II and of course I guess that's what was meant to be. why? I don't know. It could have been completely seperate from the donner films and no one would have a problem with that. But as it is, i felt like I was watching one of those fan films you can find on the net that sometimes parody the original film or try to be sequels/prequels to them but have different actors and don't really respect the continuity much.

I also was bothered by how my favorite character in the whole universe, Jason, wasn't very curious about his powers after discovering them. that seemed poorly written because HE'S GOT SUPER POWERS. DADDY DADDY, I CAN THROW A PIANO! that's what was missing.

It wasn't all bad. I liked some parts, but that's for another thread I guess.

 

[Immortalfire]

I feel like I just time travelled back to three months ago.

 

[buggs0268]

The story. Only thing that bugged me about Routh was the suit he had to wear, which wasn't his fault. But the story was bad. It was a bad remake of STM without all the fun.

 

[explode7]

^Well said.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

If you actually look at the plot there is very little. Not enough for a 45 minute episode of Lois & Clark, let alone a two-hour movie. Whereas with X-Men, Singer was very efficient and economical, Superman Returns was the complete opposite.

 

[The Kid]

hmmm I think I see what you're saying.

Going back to what i said earlier about superman being very foolish in the film by leaving lois with an unborn child for five years, so he can go look at a dead planet, it unfortunately didn't give me much sympathy for him and his situation although the film gives us plenty of shots of supes/clark pouting and weeping to show how down he was. But the hole he was in the entire film was dug by him if you get what I mean. In spidey 2, this was handled better, I think. It was pretty cheesy like raimi normally makes it I gues, but Pete getting dumped on the entire film was really a struggle he didn't deserve, He's just a good guy trying to find his legs as a hero and finally he just cant take it and loses his powers... and wanting the girl, tries to win her from her own Richard White character and in the end I felt pretty good for him because the hero is rewarded for doing what was right, keeping the curse for the good of something bigger than his personal issues...hmm..

So about the plot, maybe the whole world not needing superman might have been something worth developing more? Because when superman says he hears people crying for a hero everyday, why does he say that, to be smug to lois and disprove her views of him being needed? Does supes think the world would go to hell without him? This might have been interesting.

 

[CGHulk]

The story!

 

[Ironman69]

The story mostly...although Routh looked a bit too young, he didn't get much to work with

 

[BatFitz]

I liked the film...but the editing felt a bit last minute and choppy...Obviously, I'd like to see the Krypton scene back in and of course alot of bookend scenes here and there...I really wish Singer would stop thinking that we wouldn't enjoy the return to krypton scene...Modesty is great, but that's too far...

 

[Arach Knight]

Sorry for revisiting moments of the past, but like I said, I was on a sabatical of sorts, from Superherohype. There have been some pretty strong and well worded resposnes, that have been generated by this thread. Especially the comparison to Spider-Man 2, and the idea that there was not enough expressed in regards to the angle of a world without Superman. The trailers did give off the idea tha the world was going to shun Superman, but when things were put into motion, it was quite obvious that Lois was the only one who truly felt the need to move on. The rest of the world was sort of on pause until Superman returned. I have to admit, that had me rather disappointed when I saw the movie.

 

[MFM]

In certain ways, Brandon Routh was the problem. First, because he's not suitable for the story, since he looks too young but yet this is Superman 5 years after the (supposedly) event in Superman: The Movie. If this is a new (origin or whatever) version of Superman movie, where the story concerns Supes's first debut or anything, I'll surely have no problem with Routh. The second part was because of Routh's stupid costume that makes his torso "elongated" and makes him look thin and "feminine". If the position of the belt was higher, maybe Routh will look better as the MAN of steel.

But of course, those were just minor problems, as the main, major problem of the movie WILL ALWAYS BE the story, especially the sub(read: STUPID)plot involving the superkid!

Anyway, here's a link to some very interesting read on Superman Returns:
http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/moviesarc07/index.cgi?read=85656
http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/moviesarc07/index.cgi?read=85661

 

[David33]

The movie had:

-Awful script

-Lame plot

-Bad acting

-Bad editing

-Bad direction.

 

[DrMylesOBoogie]

Story was really badly told. Routh wasn't as good as people are saying he was but I don't completely fault him. He's young and inexperienced and a decent director that get's Superman could have steered him in the right direction.

 

[lordofthenerds]

I thought this movie was great. But if I had to say what I liked the least about it, it would be the recycled storylines from the Donner film.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

If this movie had one thing going for it..that was Brandon routh.

 

[Kabuki_Jo]

The movie had:

-Awful script

-Lame plot

-Bad acting

-Bad editing

-Bad direction.

[/quote/]

 

[Apellation]

The story wasn't handled to it's full potential.

Routh was perfectly fine.

 

[Dr. Fate]

In certain ways, Brandon Routh was the problem. First, because he's not suitable for the story, since he looks too young but yet this is Superman 5 years after the (supposedly) event in Superman: The Movie. If this is a new (origin or whatever) version of Superman movie, where the story concerns Supes's first debut or anything, I'll surely have no problem with Routh. The second part was because of Routh's stupid costume that makes his torso "elongated" and makes him look thin and "feminine". If the position of the belt was higher, maybe Routh will look better as the MAN of steel.

But of course, those were just minor problems, as the main, major problem of the movie WILL ALWAYS BE the story, especially the sub(read: STUPID)plot involving the superkid!

Anyway, here's a link to some very interesting read on Superman Returns:
http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/moviesarc07/index.cgi?read=85656
http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/moviesarc07/index.cgi?read=85661

I'm inclined to agree. The story set Superman up to have been missing for like 5 years, but Routh still has the look of a Hollywood high school kid. He was simply too young looking to be convincing as a Superman who's returning from a 5 year absence and has prior experience as Superman before leaving; Singer should have realized that Superman should look old enough to have been missing and hired an actor old enough to be convincingly experienced as Superman. Acting wise, Routh gave a valiant effort, but he couldn't quite pull it off, whether because he simply didn't have the experience or lacked a good script and good direction. And of course, that rubbery, washed out looking costume with the scaley exterior and diluted color scheme didn't do him any favors.

Then there's the story or lack thereof - they kept beating the drum about this great story they had about Superman dealing with the ramifications of having been away from Earth and how the Earth would react to him coming back, but they don't really make anything of it. Superman just shows up, resumes doing good deeds and the world falls in love with him again, without a hint of resentment for him leaving in the first place. And Superman NOT telling the world he was leaving in the first place? Give me a break. He's a big enough man to tell the world something important like that, and I don't buy "he didn't want the villains to know he was leaving" as an excuse, because sooner or later, the bad guys would have noticed he was gone. As said before, there just wasn't enough here to justify an episode of Lois & Clark or Superman the Animated series, let alone a 2 hour film.

 

[matthooper]

Routh was pretty much the one thing I thought they did right. A good script and a director with an imagination would have been a good start.

 

[Alonsovich]

Even if Superman would've been played by an Oscar caliber actor, with Superman looks that would put Reeve to shame... the story would've still made the movie at least totally disappointing...

 

[buggs0268]

I actually think that Superman 4, minus Luthors stupid cousin and a better developed nuclear man character, was better than SR by leaps and bounds. It really needed a rewrite, the money that Warner's gave for it's budget, and a capable director like Donner. Had 4 been done now with a capable director and a more serious tone it would have kicked ass. SR would have sucked no matter when it was made. It showed Superman much more in a world saviour role than SR ever could have.

 

[Superman45]

Have all of you forgoten Xmen and X2 Singer directed them and fans loved them. So when Singer trys his hand at superman and falls short, he's suddenly a bad director. Thats like calling Da Vinci a bad artist because mona lisa's a little fat. Singer did a better job than any of you could so don't blame him.
The story was very realistic in terms of lex wanting more land. A human characteristic of greed. The kid was a bad idea but atleast it opened doors and possabilities like mabey Braniac kills jason and this hurts superman more than kryptonit ever could.Jasons death makes supes angry and we get a epic battle sequence with a pissed off superman, things like that.
I will admit some huge mistakes have been made (the suit)but nothing really to take away from the superman experence. The question is whats a good superman movie? weve established that Superman 1 and 2 were good but I know if superman 1 had been made in 2006 all of you people would be complaning about how unrealistic it was when superman flew around the world turning back time. If he can turn back time way doesn't he just turn back time to before lex growing more land. problem solved right.
Yes it's eaisy to critisize in todays modern world about how stupid somthing is unlike the 1970's when people still had imaginations. but if you guy's can make a better Superman movie that would apeal to audiences and fans be my guest. But being a filmmaker myself I can respect what Bryan has done.