Superman Returns What could have made Superman Returns better

[hopefuldreamer]

I just have to laugh when people actually resort to bashing Reeve to raise up Routh. Reeve on his worst day is FAR better than Routh could ever dream of being.

Can you not just accept that someone preffered Routh's Superman to Reeve's, because of the reasons stated in this thread (I.e. cheesy outdated dialogue and acting style)

It's not 'bashing' it's just an honest opinion, and one that people should be allowed to express without the inane and predictable response of:

'You do not diss Christopher Reeve, You do not diss Christopher Reeve!'

 

[bonoferox]

It's not 'bashing' it's just an honest opinion, and one that people should be allowed to express without the inane and predictable response of:

'You do not diss Christopher Reeve, You do not diss Christopher Reeve!'

Indeed.

I loved Routh and I loved Reeve for what they did with what they were given. Just comes down to people being cynical because of no real valid argument.

 

[stargazer]

Indeed.

I loved Routh and I loved Reeve for what they did with what they were given. Just comes down to people being cynical because of no real valid argument.

Same here, I loved them both a lot.

So you think it's laughable when people resort to bash one in order to praise the other... and you do the exact same thing?

THIS.

 

[Micromind]

Most people do not realize how difficult it must be for any actor who has to step into shoes of iconic character played by an icon (Chris Reeve) and in a big budget movie coming back to big screen after a period of 19 years where all fans and critics are just waiting to judge the performance.

And at that time Routh had very little acting experience plus the fact that Singer's directing style is such that he does not guide the actors completely but gives them rough idea of what he expects them to do and leaves the acting part to the actor himself.


I would say taking all this into consideration Routh did a commendable job.

 

[Micromind]

Posted this in the other thread -

Singer shot almost a three hour movie (180 minutes) and gave us a two hour 28 minute movie.

There are more return to krypton scenes than the ones that are released, more childhood Clark Kent scenes, many more flying scenes with Routh on wires and rigs etc.

 

[SpitCurl]

Most people do not realize how difficult it must be for any actor who has to step into shoes of iconic character played by an icon (Chris Reeve) and in a big budget movie coming back to big screen after a period of 19 years where all fans and critics are just waiting to judge the performance.

And at that time Routh had very little acting experience plus the fact that Singer's directing style is such that he does not guide the actors completely but gives them rough idea of what he expects them to do and leaves the acting part to the actor himself.


I would say taking all this into consideration Routh did a commendable job.

Which is why BR was wrong for the role, a mistake which falls on Singer. Ignoring the greater error of continuing w/that version of the character to begin with, he should've absolutley considered how a young and mostly inexperienced actor would fare walking into a production like that.

As you said, Superman's an iconic character and these movies are ridiculously expensive, so it would've behooved Singer to pick a seasoned actor (theater experience, at least) capable of pulling off a more mature look, even if still faily young (as Chris Reeve did himself), verses an inexperienced guy who's appearance (vague resemblance to CR aside) seemed to suggest that Superman had somehow de-aged while traveling through space.

From all that I'd heard and read, Singer chose Brandon mainly on a first impression, a hugely irresponsible decision given how much was riding on his performance.

 

[Dr.]

In interviews, Reeve said that the big concern/focus was to make Supes “human” – more than just the stereotypical/one-dimensional superhero. To that end, he had a few cute one-liners, saved a cat, had a schoolboy crush on Lois (and in the extended versions, some “emo” scenes with Jor-El). And this is all quite separate from his comedic Clark persona. It mostly worked – given the context. Keep in mind, STM was the first big superhero movie; there was no formula-for-success to copy.

But imo (in retrospect), Supes in STM was a little too “warm-and-fuzzy.” I prefer a Supes who’s a bit more serious and enigmatic – in the “strong and silent” Gary Cooper tradition of leading men. So in that respect, I like Routh’s performance over Reeve’s. (This doesn’t mean that Routh is the better actor. I’m just talking about the specific interpretation.)

And as noted, SR didn’t really lend itself to a Reeve-type performance. Arguably, the film was a drama, not an actioner. If that’s your complaint, fair enough. But that was Singer’s call, not Routh’s.

Somewhat ironically, I think Routh was at his most Reeve-like (warm and charming) in the Kitty rescue scene. Now you might say this was a waste – that such charm should have featured in a Lois scene. But, again, that wasn’t the story. At the very least, though, the Kitty scene shows that Routh could handle the “warm charm” when required.

 

[stargazer]

Although I loved Reeve in the role, I prefer Brandon's more serious interpretation. I just loved the story in SR, it made me feel for Superman even more than in the Reeve films. Singer chose the right guy for the job in my book!

 

[SpitCurl]

...I prefer a Supes who’s a bit more serious and enigmatic – in the “strong and silent” Gary Cooper tradition of leading men. So in that respect, I like Routh’s performance over Reeve’s. (This doesn’t mean that Routh is the better actor. I’m just talking about the specific interpretation.)..

I don't know about serious and enigmatic as being defining character traits -- it seems like we veer too close to Bruce territory when we say that -- though, I'm all for moments of Supes displaying great levels of pisstivity t: or pathos, whatever. A good example is his reaction to Lois' death in S2. Time-travel aside, watching CR simmer to a boil and then take to the heavens with that gut-wrenching scream is pretty serious.

Now, there are parts of SR I like - I saw the film twice in the theater and bought the DVD as soon as it came out, so I must enjoy something about it - but overall I just never bought Brandon as the character, 100%. The rooftop scene was cringe-inducing to me, as well as the Creeper-Superman stuff. I do get where Singer was trying to go w/him "checking-in" on Lois - and maybe it would've played better for the larger audience had Singer audience allowed us in a bit more on the character's thought-process and not made him so silent.

I think to really pull off those stalker-like beats, we needed to see him Superman trying to work out this issue aloud, and not merely brooding wordlessly. Having him confide in Martha - or h*ll, even Jimmy, as Jimmy's passed out next to him at the bar -would've helped (and provided much-needed levity on top of the angst).

Although I loved Reeve in the role, I prefer Brandon's more serious interpretation. I just loved the story in SR, it made me feel for Superman even more than in the Reeve films. Singer chose the right guy for the job in my book!

Hey, to each their own I'd prefer that same story-line sans superhero (the ex returns...) but it's nice that there's something out there for all of us.

Edit: as an aside, I really, desperately want to see at least a brief scene or montage showing Superman enjoying the holy h*ll out of his powers. He's literally got the weight of the world on his shoulders at times - let the guy have a little fun. That's what SR was lacking in spades: it was a down movie, over all, even with goofy Lex and his henchmen. Let Supes revel in his abilities for a bit. Show him laughing or smiling as he flies (and not at the end credits mimicking CR). We all get that release from our lives in some way - that should be his.

 

[Dr.]

Now, there are parts of SR I like - I saw the film twice in the theater and bought the DVD as soon as it came out, so I must enjoy something about it - but overall I just never bought Brandon as the character, 100%. The rooftop scene was cringe-inducing to me, as well as the Creeper-Superman stuff. I do get where Singer was trying to go w/him "checking-in" on Lois - and maybe it would've played better for the larger audience had Singer audience allowed us in a bit more on the character's thought-process and not made him so silent.

I think the “larger audience” (with no notion of Supes being the apex of moral perfection ) simply accepted the scene as intended: a depiction of longing and regret. It’s the life Supes might have had with Lois. And this lament functions on two levels. Perhaps if Supes just hadn’t been gone for those five years, he’d be in Richard’s place. Perhaps (and more likely), the absence made no real difference.

The broader theme in SR is that the hero’s obligations preclude the quaintly idealized “domesticity” that’s being observed and represented in the scene. In order to be who he is and do what he does, Superman must be (in both a real and symbolic sense) the outsider. That’s actually a classic construction within the hero mythology. True – sometimes the hero does get to partake of the normalcy (the proverbial happy ending) that he worked to bring about. But that’s because the crisis/villain has been vanquished and the hero (as such) is no longer necessary. In serial adventures, however, the crises are never-ending. So conventional normalcy is always beyond reach.

Now in terms of the moral objections to the so-called “peeping tom” scene… those strike me as dubious (a bit of affected indignation, “pearl clutching” – not to say sanctimonious). It’s one thing for Supes to be a “boy scout.” It’s another to demand he be the product of an immaculate conception.

In the first place, Supes violates personal privacy all the time. In STM, for example, it wasn’t necessary for him to x-ray Lois’s purse (“$10, two credit cards, a hairbrush, and a lipstick…”) or her lungs (an intrusive medical examination!). Do these (and similar examples in comics) warrant outrage too? Doesn’t seem so. But whether done for laughs or drama, the principle of privacy violation would seem to be the same. Yet instead of acknowledging a problem that’s symptomatic within the entire mythos, SR is singled out for special condemnation. Some consistency would seem to be in order.

In the second place, it’s clear that Superman’s motive (in the SR scene) was (as you mentioned) just to check in on Lois – to confirm in his own mind that she was happy and that, with him out of the picture, things had worked out for the better. Of course, Supes lingers too long and overhears Lois’s explicit rejection of him. So the knowledge gleaned served as a kind of poetic punishment for the transgression. Indeed, this type of “accidental discovery” is a fairly common device within drama. Yet it seemed to cause apoplexy when used in a Superman story.

Idealize a character too much and you drain the life out of him. There’s a reason that few stories feature God as the protagonist. Dramatically, God is boring.

 

[SpitCurl]

I think the “larger audience” (with no notion of Supes being the apex of moral perfection ) simply accepted the scene as intended: a depiction of longing and regret...

Perhaps, but it's likely they didn't care for it, either (I'm generalizing, of course, but clearly there were things about the film that weren't received well or we'd be speculating on what the final part of the trilogy would be; it's reasonable to assume Creeper-Superman was one of them).

...Now in terms of the moral objections to the so-called “peeping tom” scene… Supes violates personal privacy all the time. In STM, for example, it wasn’t necessary for him to x-ray Lois’s purse (“$10, two credit cards, a hairbrush, and a lipstick…&#8221 or her lungs (an intrusive medical examination!). Do these (and similar examples in comics) warrant outrage too? Doesn’t seem so....

Context is part of it. You can argue apples-to-apples that any use of x-ray vision w/o consent is wrong, but, look at the examples: I believe in the purse sequence he's confirming nothing was was stolen (my memorie's rusty), and the lung bit, he's concerned about her health (imagine he spots a cancerous mass - Lois ain't gonna b*tch about invasion of privacy). In both cases it's about her best interest (from his POV) while spying on Lois from outside the home was for his alone.

...In the second place, it’s clear that Superman’s motive (in the SR scene) was (as you mentioned) just to check in on Lois – to confirm in his own mind that she was happy and that, with him out of the picture...

Nailed it.

...Of course, Supes lingers too long and overhears Lois’s explicit rejection of him. So the knowledge gleaned served as a kind of poetic punishment for the transgression...Yet it seemed to cause apoplexy when used in a Superman story.

You could argue that glancing in a woman's purse is as much a violation, yet peering through walls just feels more inappropriate. Why? Because we all do natural-yet-disgusting things in the privacy of our homes, and part of the discomfort in watching that, scene I think, is putting ourseleves in Lois' place and imagining what someone might see if watching us - not quite the same level of invasion as xraying for black-lung or a missing credit card.

...Idealize a character too much and you drain the life out of him. There’s a reason that few stories feature God as the protagonist. Dramatically, God is boring.

I agree. Superman should show real emotion and have flaws, but, there are countless ways to show those flaws without making people feel uncomfortable on a visceral level in the process.

 

[El Payaso]

Perhaps, but it's likely they didn't care for it, either (I'm generalizing, of course, but clearly there were things about the film that weren't received well or we'd be speculating on what the final part of the trilogy would be; it's reasonable to assume Creeper-Superman was one of them).

No, it's not reasonable. It'0s reasonable to assume the lack of punching/more action was.

But Superman had deleted Lois's memory without her permission, had destroyed a taxi for the fun of playing Clark, had quit his mission just to bed the girl and jhad abused his super powers to have a personal vendetta against Rocky, the trucker. If people were so picky about Superman's morals, they wouldn't have accepted STM and SII.

Context is part of it. You can argue apples-to-apples that any use of x-ray vision w/o consent is wrong, but, look at the examples: I believe in the purse sequence he's confirming nothing was was stolen (my memorie's rusty), and the lung bit, he's concerned about her health (imagine he spots a cancerous mass - Lois ain't gonna b*tch about invasion of privacy). In both cases it's about her best interest (from his POV) while spying on Lois from outside the home was for his alone.

Excuse me, the only way to check if something was stolen from Lois's purse was having checked the opurse BEFORE the robbery. And there was NO reason whatsoever to x-ray Lois's purse before the robbery as Superman didn't know she was going to be robbed. Therefore he did it for the fun of it. Not the sanest reason to do it. But he grew uo being Superman, so he's used to use his powers.

You could argue that glancing in a woman's purse is as much a violation, yet peering through walls just feels more inappropriate. Why? Because we all do natural-yet-disgusting things in the privacy of our homes, and part of the discomfort in watching that, scene I think, is putting ourseleves in Lois' place and imagining what someone might see if watching us - not quite the same level of invasion as xraying for black-lung or a missing credit card.

Hah. If we put ourselves in Lois's shoes, or mind, we'd probably find out that she craved for Superman checking on her, x-rays or whatever the resource might be. Last thing she would think of is suing him.

Superman knew exactly who he was watching over.

I agree. Superman should show real emotion and have flaws, but, there are countless ways to show those flaws without making people feel uncomfortable on a visceral level in the process.

And there are ways to say this confirming so many people actually felt uncomfortable. So far in the franchise the only way they did it was simply ignoring the consequences.

Superman quits his mission: he got back his powers so no one was questioning his decision.
Superman abuised of his powers against a human being to have a personal satisfaction: Ah, it was comedic so we'd better laugh at it.
Superman manipulated Lois's mind: she seemed happy so nobody questioned his intrusive manipulation.

 

[SpitCurl]

No, it's not reasonable. It'0s reasonable to assume the lack of punching/more action was.

Actually, it is. We don't really know what all played into the movie not performing well overall, so there's no reason a Peeping-Tom Superman couldn't be a factor as well as the lack of action. Granted, forums aren't indicative of the general public as a whole, but I see CreeperMan stuff cited on these types of boards just as often as "no punches".

But Superman had deleted Lois's memory without her permission, had destroyed a taxi for the fun of playing Clark, had quit his mission just to bed the girl and jhad abused his super powers to have a personal vendetta against Rocky, the trucker. If people were so picky about Superman's morals, they wouldn't have accepted STM and SII.

I'm sure you could parse through the comics as well for many a questionable decision on Superman's part. Isn't there even a term for that? ("Super-d*ckery"). I'm simply offering up a rationale as to why this particular offence may've bothered people. Again, it's the act itself & the nerve it strikes.

Excuse me, the only way to check if something was stolen from Lois's purse was having checked the opurse BEFORE the robbery. And there was NO reason whatsoever to x-ray Lois's purse before the robbery as Superman didn't know she was going to be robbed...

You're excused

Sure, it was likely written to be playful and to display his powers (I don't recall if we seen Supes using x-ray vision before that) but still, not exactly on par with potentially eyeing Lois taking a massive dump or swapping out a tampon or having wild BDSM sex w/the hubby, any of which could've been going on when Supes decided to creep (or maybe he listened for the sounds of water sploshing or any grunts and groans first).

Hah. If we put ourselves in Lois's shoes, or mind, we'd probably find out that she craved for Superman checking on her, x-rays or whatever the resource might be. Last thing she would think of is suing him.Superman knew exactly who he was watching over.

I don't know what the heck Superman knew (the guy didn't say much, harhar), but, it doesn't really matter. It could totally be that no one was bothered by the "Kiss", or the purse x-ray or any other abuse of power because they found those films so enjoyable that their overall enjoyment either didn't allow them to notice at the time or to give a crap. I'm sure if SR had simply been a better film we wouldn't even be discussing this. But, in a sea of recycled plot-lines and villains, questionable costume choices, and a general melancholy tone, him spying on Lois just went the extra mile in turning people off.

 

[El Payaso]

Actually, it is. We don't really know what all played into the movie not performing well overall, so there's no reason a Peeping-Tom Superman couldn't be a factor as well as the lack of action.

So it's reasonable for you to state something as true because you don't know if it's not that way. God exists because you don't know if he doesn't.

Granted, forums aren't indicative of the general public as a whole, but I see CreeperMan stuff cited on these types of boards just as often as "no punches".

I'd address the fact that being pointed out in these forums is hardly indicative of the general public as a whole, but I see you already know that. It's just that you decided to ignore yourself.

I'm sure you could parse through the comics as well for many a questionable decision on Superman's part. Isn't there even a term for that? ("Super-d*ckery"). I'm simply offering up a rationale as to why this particular offence may've bothered people. Again, it's the act itself & the nerve it strikes.

So, again, Superman has abused his powers to have a personal revenge on a human being and now checking on Lois through walls is way too much.

Sure, it was likely written to be playful and to display his powers (I don't recall if we seen Supes using x-ray vision before that) but still, not exactly on par with potentially eyeing Lois taking a massive dump or swapping out a tampon or having wild BDSM sex w/the hubby, any of which could've been going on when Supes decided to creep (or maybe he listened for the sounds of water sploshing or any grunts and groans first).

I'd say Superman would have probably heard things before using x-rays, but I see you already know that. It's just that you decided to ignore yourself.

I don't know what the heck Superman knew (the guy didn't say much, harhar),

Yeah because all we know about characters are from what they talk. Not only you have decided to ignore yourself but also all the narrative devices that are not the most basic one: verbal explanations.

That said, you also ignored STM and SII, where we can see what happened between Superman and Lois before SR.

It could totally be that no one was bothered by the "Kiss", or the purse x-ray or any other abuse of power because they found those films so enjoyable that their overall enjoyment either didn't allow them to notice at the time or to give a crap. I'm sure if SR had simply been a better film we wouldn't even be discussing this. But, in a sea of recycled plot-lines and villains, questionable costume choices, and a general melancholy tone, him spying on Lois just went the extra mile in turning people off.

So, in the end, you know it wasn't actually about watching Lois through the walls, but something else (like if it had more action people wouldn't bother to split hairs on other subjects, like you do). It's just that you decided to ignore yourself.

 

[Micromind]

Actually, it is. We don't really know what all played into the movie not performing well overall, so there's no reason a Peeping-Tom Superman couldn't be a factor as well as the lack of action. Granted, forums aren't indicative of the general public as a whole, but I see CreeperMan stuff cited on these types of boards just as often as "no punches".

If you see that movie (SR) again, you will notice that it is continuation of STM, but with a darker tone and somber atmosphere, Superman has always broken the "Laws" since he was created, sure Superman is an idealist who is good at heart and would fight for oppressed and weak. But Superman always breaks so called laws of the land, that includes flying without government approval, using his powers to beat up criminals, using his powers like Super hearing, X- Ray vision to hear what he wants without peoples' (or authorities's approval.) some may term it as intrusion of privacy or spying or stalker behavior, Supes does not care. If that troubles you maybe Captain America is more like what you want.

I'm sure you could parse through the comics as well for many a questionable decision on Superman's part. Isn't there even a term for that? ("Super-d*ckery"). I'm simply offering up a rationale as to why this particular offence may've bothered people. Again, it's the act itself & the nerve it strikes.

Superman visits Lois lanes home again towards the end of the movie and He again enters home to look at his son Jason, without Lois' knowledge of his presence there, Is is inappropriate ? He even says that "I am always around" Does that mean that he is a stalker ? This is all incorrect interpretation of his motives.

Sure, it was likely written to be playful and to display his powers (I don't recall if we seen Supes using x-ray vision before that) but still, not exactly on par with potentially eyeing Lois taking a massive dump or swapping out a tampon or having wild BDSM sex w/the hubby, any of which could've been going on when Supes decided to creep (or maybe he listened for the sounds of water sploshing or any grunts and groans first).

Again, you are creating an illusion that Supes is doing something that he never does, just think about it This guy can hear almost every sound if he is even near that location, that would already give him an idea of what to expect where. BTW, Richard White was not her husband, Lois was only engaged to him and whether she truly loved him is a matter of opinion, as Jimmy told Clark that " she was still in love with you know who"

I don't know what the heck Superman knew (the guy didn't say much, harhar), but, it doesn't really matter. It could totally be that no one was bothered by the "Kiss", or the purse x-ray or any other abuse of power because they found those films so enjoyable that their overall enjoyment either didn't allow them to notice at the time or to give a crap. I'm sure if SR had simply been a better film we wouldn't even be discussing this. But, in a sea of recycled plot-lines and villains, questionable costume choices, and a general melancholy tone, him spying on Lois just went the extra mile in turning people off.

STM showed plenty of instances where Supes made a choice of using his powers in a way that he thought was right, whether that amounts to abuse is open to interpretation and opinions. Only you were apparently turned off maybe you should have "turned off" while watching STM.

 

[Dr.]

No, it's not reasonable. It's reasonable to assume the lack of punching/more action was.

Yes. I honestly think the “action quotient” (or lack thereof) had a lot to do with the lukewarm reaction to SR. With more action, a lot of the other "sins" would have been forgiven. That said, there's a bit of a double standard at work. Many SR critics don’t hesitate to cite STM as the far superior movie. Yet, STM had about the same level of action as SR (arguably less).

 

[stargazer]

I don't know what the heck Superman knew (the guy didn't say much, harhar), but, it doesn't really matter. It could totally be that no one was bothered by the "Kiss", or the purse x-ray or any other abuse of power because they found those films so enjoyable that their overall enjoyment either didn't allow them to notice at the time or to give a crap. I'm sure if SR had simply been a better film we wouldn't even be discussing this. But, in a sea of recycled plot-lines and villains, questionable costume choices, and a general melancholy tone, him spying on Lois just went the extra mile in turning people off.

The actress from The Piano (Holy Hunter I think) won an Oscar for her performance. She was mute. Film is a visual medium.

The melancholy tone in SR is one of the things I love about the film. SR is all character, feeling and atmosphere. Worked for me. There was enough action to my tastes.

I like the SR suit. It looks regal. Don't love everything about it but I think Brandon looked sexy. I'm a girl sue me, lol.

The spying never bothered me. It actually made him more human and relatable to me. He was desperate and in shock at finding Lois engaged to another guy; he thought she'd never settle down. I actually don't care for a totally perfect Superman on film or othewise, it makes him too boring and one-dimensional. He can be a little flawed and still be a good and heroic guy like in SR.

I'm sure you hate the scene where Superman and Lois are in bed together in Superman 2. They weren't married!!!!!! ew, lol.

 

[SpitCurl]

You know what, I retract every statement I made. Superman did no wrong, his x-raying Lois' home bothered no one and was actually a warm and fuzzy gesture done for all the right reasons & anyone who doesn't think the only reason the movie didn't work was because Supes didn't punch enough people and make things go Boom is a super-*****e who obviously doesn't get it.

Also, the costume totally rocks and Charlie Chaplin was a God on film & hardly uttered a word, so boo, dialogue!

We all on the same page now?

 

[Dozerman]

So does anyone think if singer did not do Valkyrie and there was no writers strike that SR would have got a sequel? I think to much time passed and then the producers figured they could get away with a reboot. Or do you think it would have happen anyway.

 

[Nevaratoiel]

I think the reason Superman Returns didn't get a sequel is because in the end the film didn't do as well as they had expected. And it was well, because I don't think Warner Brothers liked the storyline very much. The cinema and DVD sales just helped along. I think it could've done better if they promoted it more too...

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

1. Superman should never have left, and if he was going to leave he should have made an announcement and told people he was coming back. Isn't this movie a lose sequel to Superman II, and at the end of that movie didn't he say he wasn't going to abandon them again?
2. I have seen Brandon Routh in Dylan Dogg, and I am almost prepared to state that he is just not a good actor. Now saying that, I do think if he had actually been giving something to do in Superman Returns, he might not be regarded as one of the worst actor's to put on the suit. Superman and Clark Kent were so boring and on dimensional in the movie and they both had hardly anything to do.
3. It shouldn't have been a lose sequel AND there especially shouldn't have been any lame rehashed scenes that had been in Superman:TM, like Lois and Clark getting stuck in the door.
And although I love the idea of Lois and Clark having a son, I know a lot of people hated it. And if they were going to do such a thing, they should have explained the situation more and better. For example, how the heck was Superman gone for 5yrs yet Jason is exactly 5yrs old!!! Does Brian Singer not know about the 9 months in the womb? Jason would have been 4yrs old at the least, and 4yrs and 5 months at the most. Also what school did Brian Singer go to where a 5yr old gets a report card and has gym? Do Lois and Richard know that Richard isn't the father, or is Lois some skank who doesn't know who her babies daddy is? When did Lois get pregnant? During the sex in SII, or did Superman give into temptation after that and had sex with her again?

 

[Nevaratoiel]

2. I have seen Brandon Routh in Dylan Dogg, and I am almost prepared to state that he is just not a good actor. Now saying that, I do think if he had actually been giving something to do in Superman Returns, he might not be regarded as one of the worst actor's to put on the suit. Superman and Clark Kent were so boring and on dimensional in the movie and they both had hardly anything to do.

Now, that's where I think you're wrong. And I'm just saying this because it's my opinion and here above is yours. I think Brandon was great as Clark, though I had hoped they would develop Clark a bit more. But in looks and acting Brandon for me was the best Clark impersonation. Superman needed more lines, but the overall feel was good, in my opinion. I think they were not boring, neither Superman nor Clark.

And although I love the idea of Lois and Clark having a son, I know a lot of people hated it. And if they were going to do such a thing, they should have explained the situation more and better. For example, how the heck was Superman gone for 5yrs yet Jason is exactly 5yrs old!!! Does Brian Singer not know about the 9 months in the womb? Jason would have been 4yrs old at the least, and 4yrs and 5 months at the most. Also what school did Brian Singer go to where a 5yr old gets a report card and has gym? Do Lois and Richard know that Richard isn't the father, or is Lois some skank who doesn't know who her babies daddy is? When did Lois get pregnant? During the sex in SII, or did Superman give into temptation after that and had sex with her again?

I don't think there's been one time in the film where they actually said he had been gone five years. I just heard 'a long time'. So there is no mention he has been gone for an actual 5 years. I think it must have been said in an interview or in a novel, or something, but never in the film itself.

Also, you forget that Superman removed Lois' memories, so she doesn't remember ever having... um... intercourse with him. They could have explained it a bit more in the film, but Singer chose not to. Probably because the fans knew what happened in Superman II. Maybe Richard came into the picture around the time Superman disappeared and maybe they thought Jason was born early. All these things could've happened. But it was never properly explained. Maybe they should've.

 

[El Payaso]

We all on the same page now?

Literally. Page 6.

I think the reason Superman Returns didn't get a sequel is because in the end the film didn't do as well as they had expected. And it was well, because I don't think Warner Brothers liked the storyline very much. The cinema and DVD sales just helped along. I think it could've done better if they promoted it more too...

Yes, well after all those years they wanted much more than 400 millions. It was more than what BB did but not enough for its budget.

1. Superman should never have left, and if he was going to leave he should have made an announcement and told people he was coming back. Isn't this movie a lose sequel to Superman II, and at the end of that movie didn't he say he wasn't going to abandon them again?

So..... what part of 'loose sequel' did you not get?

And why exactly should he have said he was coming back?

2. I have seen Brandon Routh in Dylan Dogg, and I am almost prepared to state that he is just not a good actor. Now saying that, I do think if he had actually been giving something to do in Superman Returns, he might not be regarded as one of the worst actor's to put on the suit. Superman and Clark Kent were so boring and on dimensional in the movie and they both had hardly anything to do.

Well, his Clark Kent was actually better than Reeve's. But well Reeve created it, Brandon just replicated it less cartoony. But I disagree about the rest, his Superman felt as friendly as Reeve's. And that speech to Jason... sorry, but that tops Reeve too acting-wise.

That said, Reeve itself wasn't an acting beast either. He was just a great Superman.

3. It shouldn't have been a lose sequel AND there especially shouldn't have been any lame rehashed scenes that had been in Superman:TM, like Lois and Clark getting stuck in the door.

I didn't like all those STM quotes, but if for rehash, Spider-man 1 was also a rehash of STM.

And although I love the idea of Lois and Clark having a son, I know a lot of people hated it.

I'm just curious, but if you likd something, how come you're trying to make it look bad because of what other people said?

And if they were going to do such a thing, they should have explained the situation more and better. For example, how the heck was Superman gone for 5yrs yet Jason is exactly 5yrs old!!! Does Brian Singer not know about the 9 months in the womb? Jason would have been 4yrs old at the least, and 4yrs and 5 months at the most. Also what school did Brian Singer go to where a 5yr old gets a report card and has gym? Do Lois and Richard know that Richard isn't the father, or is Lois some skank who doesn't know who her babies daddy is? When did Lois get pregnant? During the sex in SII, or did Superman give into temptation after that and had sex with her again?

I agree here. Trip to Krypton, Lois's pregnancy. More information was needed.

I always assumed Lois got pregnant after the events in SII. But it was starnge how Superman kept calling her "Miss Lane." I assumed it was just to keep quoting STM.

 

[Dr.]

Do Lois and Richard know that Richard isn't the father, or is Lois some skank who doesn't know who her babies daddy is? When did Lois get pregnant? During the sex in SII, or did Superman give into temptation after that and had sex with her again?

...you forget that Superman removed Lois' memories, so she doesn't remember ever having... um... intercourse with him. They could have explained it a bit more in the film, but Singer chose not to. Probably because the fans knew what happened in Superman II.

Up to a point, SR was careful not to explicitly contradict (many of) the events in STM and SII. So if someone had seen all three, they were free to infer certain connections and continuity. But, ultimately, SR is a stand-alone movie. Imo, it’s best viewed that way; and it should certainly be judged that way.

Personally, I didn’t care for the memory-erasing-kiss in SII (speaking of invasions of privacy). Do I need to carry that "issue" over to SR? Not at all. There’s nothing in SR that remotely suggests Lois is suffering from a mysterious amnesia.

[FONT=&quot]I[/FONT]ndeed, there’s not much about the SR narrative that requires STM and SII (25+ year-old movies) as homework.

 

[The Morningstar]

The problem for me is that it didn't have it's own identity. It was too slavishly devoted to Donner's movies, but didn't have the warmth or the overall feel good factor of the first movie. Superman himself was uninteresting.

And like the Donner movies, Lex was more awkwardly comedic than threatening.