Superman Returns Was Superman Returns worth the 20 year wait?

[buggs0268]

I loved seeing the titles and hearing Williams music on the screen (except for that "bad hat harry" title, but as for the rest, no. It was a big dispointment to see a badly done rehash, and a soap opera. And that f'n suit. God.

 

[buggs0268]

So what changes upon a second viewing? Does Lex's come up with a plan that makes sense or is actually imaginative? Is there chemistry between Superman and Lois? Is the kid gone? Is Parker Posey less annoying? Are Lex's pointless goons gone? Does the assanine kryptonite inconsistencies now make sense? Do we get a good story on second viewing?

I can't imagine what would change by me seeing it again. Except that WB would get another $8 or $10 bucks.

Heh heh. This is funny.

 

[charl_huntress]

I beg to differ. That guy was overly offensive with me during the first week of SR's release, especially because I didnt like the movie. Well, I guess we all get what we deserve.

I don't think he was banned...

Yet...I think he has taken up a crusade Truth be know...I can't be mad at him. I've taken up a crusade against SR....

 

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

I don't think he was banned...

Yet...I think he has taken up a crusade Truth be know...I can't be mad at him. I've taken up a crusade against SR....

*sigh*

Atleast you're honest.

 

[Bruce_Wayne29]

Hell no !

 

[FanboyX_Returns]

20 years? Are you kidding?

It wasn't worth the 20 minute wait in line at the box office.

SO TRUE... SO TRUE...

 

[Bad Superman]

Watch STM and then watch SR.

Voted no.

 

[gimmen64]

I loved S:TM and in that regard, I was disappointed with SR, due to the... well... stuff that I already criticized so many times. I was underwhelmed with the lack of color in the movie; The fact that Superman was father to an illegitimate child; the fact that he slept with Lois, wiped out her memory, and left her without even a "good-bye"; The fact that Superman spied on Lois and her family like a cheap peeping-tom; Lex's overly daft plan with Real Estate (yet again!); Superman/Clark Kent having an obscenely low amount of dialogue; Kate Bosworth's spunk-less Lois; The home-wrecker theme of the movie (Superman butting into Lois' life with Richard); The Emo-Alien tones; Too many references and comparisons to religious figures; The whole Superman lifting New Krypton (laced with hundreds of pounds of Kryptonite), and throwing it into space - when it was already established in the movie, that even a small piece of kryptonite has deadly effects on his anatomy; The fact that Lois was overly rude and arrogant towards Clark throughout the whole movie.

Well, in short, SR was not worth the 20 year wait. No way.

Good points, espcially the last one. But I voted yes because I doubt that any other actor would have done as good as Routh did. The plane scene was great, Lex was great in this movie and Kitty was awesome. I thought that little kid was cute and liked the fact that Richard loves and cares for Lois so much. I tell you James Marsden always gets shafted in his movies.

 

[DrMylesOBoogie]

There's no such thing as a flawless movie, but I'd rather wait and get a director who understood the character and respected the source material and not just the original film.

I would also have preferred writers who had talent rather than Singer's buddies Harris & Daugherty. WB has a lot of writers at their disposal, and yet they had to massage Singer's fragile ego by allowing him his whack pack of yes men.

Singer completely disrespected the franchise and the character by many of the choices he made with this movie, and left a stamp that really another director who have a great deal of problems addressing, so likely we're stuck with Singer and his ego.

Now, we'll likely get more of the same, as if SR wasn't bad enough. We'll get to have Singer's version of Wrath of Khan starring Zod, because Superman II wasn't enough. God forbid any of Superman's other rogues actually be in a Superman movie.

Of course, this is the difference between a director like Singer and a director like Raimi or Nolan. The latter two respect the material and the character, and Singer only wants to respect the original film of Superman.

 

[gimmen64]

Watch STM and then watch SR.

Voted no.

After watching 2,3 and 4. I have to disagree. I have to say the SR was up there with STM in my book.

 

[DogofKrypton]

After watching 2,3 and 4. I have to disagree. I have to say the SR was up there with STM in my book.

Wow. You put it above 2? That is bordering on blasphemy....

But it's all based on opinion, so it's all good.

 

[casketmouth]

After 20 years of development hell you would think it would have been a flawless movie.....

but than again seeing Superman onthe big screen again is good also???

The fact that it's "superman" it can not be flawless. The original idea of superman and his secret identity already causes problems that no movie, unless thought out the box, can ever change. Superman is the most foolish concept to bring to the big screen so it's always gonna have holes and flaws gallore in the character design and his world alone. I love the guy, but truth be told.

Singer just botched everything up and the future of supes is dim. In my neighbourhood, superman is now catagorized as a romantic chick flick like what spidey one bordered. It is TOO sentimental for any guy with a real set. I understand the thought of what singer tried, but his homosexuality penetrated into the production of this movie. You can tell no straight guy would make a movie like this. Hell even Titanic was more aspiring for what it attempted to hit.

 

[casketmouth]

Wow. You put it above 2? That is bordering on blasphemy....

But it's all based on opinion, so it's all good.

They do say that opinions ar like a$$holess...everyone has one, some are just full of $hit!!!!!

 

[The Sage]

Couldn't tell you. I didn't exactly wait 20 years, LOL.

 

[Smegger56]

Yes it was. It served its purpose of reintroducing the characters. The sequel will now, i'm sure, move the franchise far forward.

Also, i'm glad they stuck to the Donner style. There's nothing wrong with that and using the source material in future movies.

 

[casketmouth]

Yes it was. It served its purpose of reintroducing the characters. The sequel will now, i'm sure, move the franchise far forward.

Also, i'm glad they stuck to the Donner style. There's nothing wrong with that and using the source material in future movies.

It's called lack of creativity and originallity. For a guy who f'd the whole X universe up and tried to be sooooo original...what happened here with that same perspective???

NOTHING was original appart from superman being a blatant fornicator and having a bastard child.

 

[Smegger56]

It's called lack of creativity and originallity. For a guy who f'd the whole X universe up and tried to be sooooo original...what happened here with that same perspective???

NOTHING was original appart from superman being a blatant fornicator and having a bastard child.

It's called 'reintroducing a character'. Not restarting a whole franchise, but reviving it. I thought it was a good move by Singer.

If he does a sequel, and i hope he does, it will move 100% forward.

 

[Alonsovich]

They do say that opinions ar like a$$holess...everyone has one, some are just full of $hit!!!!!

Then again... there are some of us that if we really wanted to hear from an ass hole we'd fart...

 

[The Kid]

It's called lack of creativity and originallity. For a guy who f'd the whole X universe up and tried to be sooooo original...what happened here with that same perspective???

NOTHING was original appart from superman being a blatant fornicator and having a bastard child.

I don't know. Superman being a dad isn't so bad once you consider batman beyond and all the amazing possibilities that show created for itself through the offspring of batman.

The premise of superman doing lois then leaving his soulmate to go check out some scientist's theory for five years, is I think a problem; many other examples show superman as being less than smart. It just boggles my brain how you could have hundreds of perfectly good stories waiting to be adapted in some shape or form, but decide to use STM as a main crutch. Even normal average people view that film as an outdated but classic version of superman nonetheless since it's so clearly a 70s film. Star wars Prequels weren't at all successful in matching the continuity or atmosphere of the original films. (Yoda riding Chewbacca, good grief.) So I think people expect better than the fourth lex luthor vs superman movie, especially one supposedly set some time after the second film or something. It's the recycling of old dialogue and plots I didn't like. In an interview the writers said they had STM looping in the background as they wrote, I think. Well I can tell they had it on their mind while writing it at least.

It's not always a bad idea. After seeing Wrath of Khan, the idea of continuing an old story by adding more and stuff can work but it'll still seem like night and day due to the radically more advanced stuff we can do compared to back when it was originally done in the 60s with miniskirts and such. And I think it worked best for wrath because the same actors were all playing the same characters from that old episode. Plus it's just a solid movie... (that too) so I think something fresh would have been the best route to go with the man of steel in today's world of hobbits and wizards and of course.I'm looking at you, sequel.

 

[The Kid]

It's called 'reintroducing a character'. Not restarting a whole franchise, but reviving it. I thought it was a good move by Singer.

If he does a sequel, and i hope he does, it will move 100% forward.

I have to say I think that's wrong. Re-introduce who? Whoever this superman is isn't anyone we've seen before.

 

[LongshotRules]

A big fat NO. SR is everything I don't want in a superhero movie. No love story, no cool villain, very few action sequence, and totally deviate from source material. Let's hope there's a restart of the franchise in 2009. And fire Singer ASAP and his goons.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

Yes for me. I've been waiting for this thing since I was 7 years old and it didn't disappoint me. I'll admit I went numb through the first viewing because I honestly never believed I'd actually watch another Superman movie in a theater again in my lifetime. I'm going to go against the grain in that I'll actually vote yes and have the balls to talk about it, unlike the majority of the other 20 or so who voted with me at post time. SR pissed off a lot of people who were expecting something else and that's okay with me...because I'm not other people and I like what I like. I originally hoped for an origin story, but this was honestly fine for me. I hear plenty of talk about glaring bloopers and errors in the film, but the original series (even THE FIRST MOVIE) were not completely in the clear, either. I didn't expect something flawless, because I watch every superhero movie I can get my grubby little mitts on, and I'm now convinced there is no such thing as the perfect superhero movie. STM had the "Can You Read My Mind" sequence (I cue past it at every viewing) and turning the world backward, Lester's SII was full of lameass extra superpowers, Spidey 1 had atrocious dialogue, Spidey 2 had a fusion test in a New York apartment, Batman Begins had badly filmed fight scenes and an outfit I hate (I won't even mention Katie Holmes) but I still love 'em to death and own every one of them. I was happy at the fact Lois and Superman didn't hook up in SR and I liked the kid. I like nearly every incarnation of Luthor (save the Lois and Clark version) and I loved Hackman's portrayal so I wasn't disappointed in Spacey's rendition, either.

 

[matthooper]

It's called 'reintroducing a character'. Not restarting a whole franchise,

No it's not. Everyone knows Superman. There is not one person on earth over the age of 5 who doesn't know Superman, what he looks like, and much of his story.

 

[WormyT]

20 years!?
No!
What we needed was..

 

[aquiles]

Yes for me. I've been waiting for this thing since I was 7 years old and it didn't disappoint me. I'll admit I went numb through the first viewing because I honestly never believed I'd actually watch another Superman movie in a theater again in my lifetime. I'm going to go against the grain in that I'll actually vote yes and have the balls to talk about it, unlike the majority of the other 20 or so who voted with me at post time. SR pissed off a lot of people who were expecting something else and that's okay with me...because I'm not other people and I like what I like. I originally hoped for an origin story, but this was honestly fine for me. I hear plenty of talk about glaring bloopers and errors in the film, but the original series (even THE FIRST MOVIE) were not completely in the clear, either. I didn't expect something flawless, because I watch every superhero movie I can get my grubby little mitts on, and I'm now convinced there is no such thing as the perfect superhero movie. STM had the "Can You Read My Mind" sequence (I cue past it at every viewing) and turning the world backward, Lester's SII was full of lameass extra superpowers, Spidey 1 had atrocious dialogue, Spidey 2 had a fusion test in a New York apartment, Batman Begins had badly filmed fight scenes and an outfit I hate (I won't even mention Katie Holmes) but I still love 'em to death and own every one of them. I was happy at the fact Lois and Superman didn't hook up in SR and I liked the kid. I like nearly every incarnation of Luthor (save the Lois and Clark version) and I loved Hackman's portrayal so I wasn't disappointed in Spacey's rendition, either.

eyy you **** i dont agree with you about "the badly filmed fight scenes in batman begins"they were filmed like that because nolan wanted to show how letal can batman be so dont **** about that, because im gonna start flaming that **** movie superman returns