Superman Returns What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

[stargazer]

This is an indepth and very insightful look at Superman Returns. This person argues why this film is great and why he likes it so much. Really enjoyed listening to it. And of course I agree that SR is a great Superman film. I really wanted to see a sequel, and I think the film deserved it.




What's So Bad About Superman Returns? - Part 1 of 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_129771&v=LiHA8s7Y77c&feature=iv


Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV6PQSC0gr8&feature=related

.

 

[Dr.]

Interesting. But...

I actually like SR. I’ve defended it on its merits and I’ve debated folks who offer (what I consider to be) poorly thought-out or inconsistent criticism of the film. And that kind of exchange works fairly well on message boards, etc. with their natural give-and-take structure. But as a formal video presentation, it comes across a tad… self-conscious. Rather than praising the movie, the fellow spends most of his time criticizing the critics.

And not always well, at that. For instance, he addresses the charge that SR is boring. But then he spends 5 minutes explaining why its running time is justified. That’s fine. But it’s got nothing to do with being boring. A ten-minute short can be a snore; a four-hour epic can be riveting.

The video was nicely put together, though, and the fellow is a good presenter. It’d be nice to see him redo the thing with a more confident attitude – rather than a defensive one.

 

[Dozerman]

Good review I think a lot of the stuff people did not like in SR will still be picked apart it MOS like the costume and casting SR should have gotten another chance I feel like Routh had a legacy stolen from him

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

It's not a bad movie but it is bad for a Superman movie.

 

[_Kal-El_]

Personally, I always felt the countless throwbacks to STM could have been dropped for an altogether new plot. Lex Luthor should never have been after another land-grab plot, but should have deliberately sought out Superman to destroy him, once and for all. Kevin Spacey's performance was also far too reminiscent of Gene Hackman. Luthor is a suave, cool, self-confident and coldblooded businessman. His OTT rants should have been left out. It doesn't suit the character. Kate Bosworth also destroyed the sympathetic relationship that Reeve and Kidder worked so hard to build. She threw it all out the window by treating Clark like dirt. Granted, it's part of the script, but that doesn't matter. She didn't live the part. She felt like a living cardboard cut-out giving her worst impression of Lois Lane. And lastly, Jason. Superman should not have conceived a son with Lois. Period.

But don't let my comments throw you off guard. I bought both the Ultimate Collector's Edition on DVD, and the Motion Picture Anthology on Blu Ray. I love Superman Returns, it's a great film, and I can overlook the points I've summed up, in favour of the bigger action scenes. Like I said before: the plane, my god, the plane! That still gives me chills.

Spoiler

Lois fants in both films after seeing Superman
Superman saves Lois from a helicopter/plane crash
Countless dialogues and scenes recycled from STM for SR:
Perry addressing his employees with possible questions
Lois Lane making ridiculous spelling errors
Superman flying by the camera at the very end
Jor-El (who should have had his energy depleted in S2)
Lex Luthor trying to -yet again- make money out of land
The numerous Christ allusions
And so on, and so forth, ...

 

[Dr.]

Personally, I always felt the countless throwbacks to STM could have been dropped for an altogether new plot. Lex Luthor should never have been after another land-grab plot...

Over-the-top Evil Schemes To Rule The World! have an obvious commonality. Lex - and any number of Bond villains - have been making the attempt for decades. But if you think about it, the SR version was a fair bit different than the STM one. It’s only because of the “homage factor” and the recycling of references to “real estate” and “land” that the SR scheme seems derivative of STM.

 

[Dangerman]

I don't think it was a bad movie at all. Superman Returns IMO is one of the best Superman stories I have seen or read years. Some things in the story I do not agree with like for example Superman and Lois having a child with out her knowing Clark Kent is Superman or at least her being interested in Clark before he left. Other than that I loved the story from the reason why he left right down to the ending. I also think the movie was beautifully shot. However I do disagree with the editing of the film. I think most of the important parts to the movie was left on the cutting floor. But other than the dynamics of Superman and Lois relationship I had no problem with the movie. I really thought it should have been given a sequel but either way it was a nice bookend to the Donner series.

 

[Dangerman]

Over-the-top Evil Schemes To Rule The World! have an obvious commonality. Lex - and any number of Bond villains - have been making the attempt for decades. But if you think about it, the SR version was a fair bit different than the STM one. It’s only because of the “homage factor” and the recycling of references to “real estate” and “land” that the SR scheme seems derivative of STM.

Really if they left the stuff they cut in the movie all that stuff would have been only seen as trying to let the viewer know the first and second movie was connected to this one. The land bit was only a small part of Lex's plan.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I appreciate that the guy has put together a very well thought out and cohesive arguement... but I feel like he glosses over the most jarring of complaints and focuses mostly on the one's he can counter with an arguement.

For instance:

1. He argues that it's wrong to complain about Richard because he is a good, likeable character.

But that's EXACTLY the problem.

We see Superman hitting on and nearly kissing a woman who is engaged to another man. And this man isn't some jerk of a character that we can easily dismiss. We can't just say 'screw it, she'd be happier with Superman' and kind of egg them on like you'd expect. He's actually a really decent guy, who doesn't deserve to be treated in that way.

I watch the movie, and I think 'Richard wouldn't have done that to Superman if the tables were turned'... what does that say about our hero? And why would you include a character in your film that appears more moral, more caring, more emotionally available, less selfish and less cold?

2. He says that the kid being included is great because it's all about the theme of the movie.

Well half of my problem with the movie is it's theme... 'The son becomes the father, the father the son'... which seems to be all it's about!

And it seems to be repeatedly shoved in our face in a way that doesn't resonate with many people, because the repeated line kind of doesn't make sense... it has never made sense to me... saying it over and over again in Marlon Brandos voice doesn't help!

The son becomes the father... (okay, Superman has become a dad, I get that), the father becomes the son... (huh? Jor-el has become Superman? or Superman has become Jason? what the heck does that mean?)

3. He address the film being boring, by saying there are plenty of action scenes. Here he is glossing over one of the most popular complaints - lack of fight scene.

FIGHT scenes.

Not action scenes.

No one is saying that there was no action in this film. Just that a superhero like Superman would have been a really exciting opportunity to see some spectacular fight scenes.

4. His arguement about Superman Returns being it's own movie and therefore having it's own Superman, meaning you can't complain it's unsupermanly... is just nuts.

OF COURSE you can complain when an interpretation of the character steers so far away from the original that you start to feel he is no longer an interpretation of the character, but an OOC version.

Flying off for 5 years into space would perhaps not be unsupermanly if it had an ounce of logic behind it... like any kind of proof that anyone was out there. It might not be so unsupermanly if he'd held a press conference, told everyone and apologised. If he'd considered for a second the implications his being gone might have on things like Lex's court case.

The whole thing just made him look incredibly impulsive, selfish and stupid.

5. It's the same with Luthor's plot for me...

It's not that it's similar to the old films that bothers me. I get it, it's a homage.

It's that it makes NO sense. Even LESS sense than the first films land plot.

In the first film, he'd bought and secured the land that would be left. He would then OWN the coast. You can at least see where he would be making money here.

But in this film, Lex actual believes two INSANE things: 1. People will want to buy some land on his big green rock... 2. The government will allow him to keep it.

What rights does he have to that land? What ownership does he have? And beyond that, what in the world in stopped the army from just flying in and killing him.

He has no defensive strategy, he has no where to hide, and he just SITS THERE playing poker, waiting... waiting for what? Someone to come over on a boat and say 'Hey, that's some cool land you got there, can I have some?'

AHHHHHHHHHH! It's just soooooo stupid!

What's so bad about Superman Returns?

1. 3 significant plot points make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER! - Superman flying off to Krypton for 5 years without telling the world
- Lex's land plot
- Jason's conception (which is never explained, but we have to assume it comes after the events of Superman II... which Lois doesn't rememeber... and yet she does in this film... and yet, if she remembers them sleeping together, why doesnt she remember that he's Clark?!)

2. It came at a time when Superhero films were moving into the modern era... and it planted itself firmly in the past like someone who refuses to buy CD's and will only listen to things that come out on vinyl.

3. While utilising great effects in some scenes, it completely missed the opportunity, with as huge a budget as it had, for some SPECTACULAR visuals. Physical fight scenes between super powered beings for instance (thank god for MOS ).

4. It made Superman unlikeable. He was depressed, lonely and kind of sulking for half the movie. He had no natural warmth... he came across very ALIEN in every sense of the word... and yet there was no effort to show his human side (other than the one drink he had with Jimmy, which is probably my favourite scene)... to show him eating his mom's home cooked food, to show him in his apartment doing normal things, sleeping, getting ready for work, laughing at a tv show he hasn't seen in 5 years... any of those things, just to ground him as the main character.

The problem was that Singer, and to a lesser extent Donner, is that they could only see Superman... they couldn't see Clark. He saw this lonely alien being, stranger from another world, and seemed to just leave out all the rest. All the aspects that make a character tangible as a protagonist.

But at least with Donner's, he had a Superman who WAS naturally warm. Who was likeable and happy and enjoyed helping people. Not some *****ebag who, after leaving her with no explanation for 5 years, would then take Lois up into the air and tell her everyone was crying out for a saviour, as though proving her wrong in this arrogant and resentful way... and then apologises like 'i'm sorry I left you all to fend for yourselves... but it's okay, i'm back now'... If I were Lois, i'd have told him where to shove his apology.

*sigh*

Maybe I should write a blog about how much I hate Superman Returns...

 

[Dangerman]

I appreciate that the guy has put together a very well thought out and cohesive arguement... but I feel like he glosses over the most jarring of complaints and focuses mostly on the one's he can counter with an arguement.

For instance:

1. He argues that those who complain about Richard are wrong because Richard is a good character.

But that's EXACTLY the problem.

We see Superman hitting on and nearly kissing a woman who is engaged to another man. And this man isn't some jerk that makes us go 'screw it, she'd be happier with Superman' so we're kind of egging them on. He's actually a really decent guy, who doesn't deserve to be treated in that way.

I watch that movie, and I think that Richard wouldn't have done that to Superman if the tables were turned... what does that say about our hero?

2. He says that the kid being included is great because it's all about the theme of the movie.

Well half of my problem with the movie is it's theme... which seems to be all it's about, and which seems to be repeatedly shoved in our face in a way that doesn't resonate with many people... because the repeated line kind of doesn't make sense... it has never made sense to me... saying over and over again in Marlon Brandos voice doesn't help!

The son becomes the father... (okay, Superman has become a dad, I get that), the father becomes the son... (huh? Jor-el has become Superman? or Superman has become Jason? what the heck does that mean?)

3. He address the film being boring, by saying there are plenty of action scenes. Here he is glossing over one of the most popular complaints - lack of fight scene.

FIGHT scenes.

Not action scenes.

No one is saying that there was no action in this film. Just that a superhero like Superman would have been a really exciting opportunity to see some spectacular fight scenes.

4. His arguement about Superman Returns being it's own movie and therefore having it's own Superman, meaning you can't complain it's unsupermanly... is just nuts.

OF COURSE you can complain when an interpretation of the character steers so far away from the original that you start to feel he is no longer an interpretation of the character, but an OOC version.

Flying off for 5 years into space would perhaps not be unsupermanly if it had an ounce of logic behind it... like any kind of proof that anyone was out there. It might not be so unsupermanly if he'd held a press conference, told everyone and apologised. If he'd considered for a second the implications his being gone might have on things like Lex's court case.

The whole thing just made him look incredibly impulsive, selfish and stupid.

5. It's the same with Luthor's plot for me...

It's not that it's similar to the old films that bothers me. I get it, it's a homage.

It's that it makes NO sense. Even LESS sense than the first films land plot.

In the first film, he'd bought and secured the land that would be left. He would then OWN the coast. You can at least see where he would be making money here.

But in this film, Lex actual believes two INSANE things: 1. People will want to buy some land on his big green rock... 2. The government will allow him to keep it.

What rights does he have to that land? What ownership does he have? And beyond that, what in the world in stopped the army from just flying in and killing him.

He has no defensive strategy, he has no where to hide, and he just SITS THERE playing poker, waiting... waiting for what? Someone to come over on a boat and say 'Hey, that's some cool land you got there, can I have some?'

AHHHHHHHHHH! It's just soooooo stupid!

What's so bad about Superman Returns?

1. 3 significant plot points make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER! - Superman flying off to Krypton for 5 years without telling the world
- Lex's land plot
- Jason's conception (which is never explained, but we have to assume it comes after the events of Superman II... which Lois doesn't rememeber... and yet she does in this film... and yet, if she remembers them sleeping together, why doesnt she remember that he's Clark?!)

2. It came at a time when Superhero films were moving into the modern era... and it planted itself firmly in the past like someone who refuses to buy CD's and will only listen to things that come out on vinyl.

3. While utilising great effects in some scenes, it completely missed the opportunity, with as huge a budget as it had, for some SPECTACULAR visuals. Physical fight scenes between super powered beings for instance (thank god for MOS ).

4. It made Superman unlikeable. He was depressed, lonely and kind of sulking for half the movie. He had no natural warmth... he came across very ALIEN in every sense of the word... and yet there was no effort to show his human side (other than the one drink he had with Jimmy, which is probably my favourite scene)... to show him eating his mom's home cooked food, to show him in his apartment doing normal things, sleeping, getting ready for work, laughing at a tv show he hasn't seen in 5 years... any of those things, just to ground him as the main character.

The problem was that Singer, and to a lesser extent Donner, is that they could only see Superman... they couldn't see Clark. He saw this lonely alien being, stranger from another world, and seemed to just leave out all the rest. All the aspects that make a character tangible as a protagonist.

But at least with Donner's, he had a Superman who WAS naturally warm. Who was likeable and happy and enjoyed helping people... not taking Lois up into the air and telling her everyone was crying out for a saviour, as though proving her wrong in this arrogant and resentful way...

*sigh*

Maybe I should write a blog about how much I hate Superman Returns...

You must not know the whole story then. It was explained why Superman never told Lois he was leaving in the script book as well as the screen test. In both he states that if he saw Lois's face and she asked him not to go then he would have never left. Which is something at the time he felt compelled to do. A lot of the stuff many fans complained about was explained but it is just left on the cutting room floor. As I have stated many times Signer didn't do a bad job IMO he did what many writers have tried to do and that is made him more relate able.

 

[Dr.]

I appreciate that the guy has put together a very well thought out and cohesive arguement... but I feel like he glosses over the most jarring of complaints and focuses mostly on the one's he can counter with an arguement.

For instance:

1. He argues that it's wrong to complain about Richard because he is a good, likeable character.

But that's EXACTLY the problem.

Allow me to agree and disagree with you on this point.

Where I agree: Dude in video says that critics hated Richard. In my experience (and yours, apparently) that’s simply not the case. Even strident critics of SR seemed to like Richard. The complaint was that he was a nicer, nobler guy than Superman. Dude was arguing the wrong thing.

Where I disagree: Richard being a “good man” was an essential aspect to the overall theme of Supes’ alienation. Without the global and mythic responsibilities of a superman, Richard can afford to be a “normal hero” and have the normal life unavailable to Supes. When Lois was in peril, he could devote himself to the single task of rescuing her. On the other hand, Supes had to interrupt his attempt, turn around and attend to earthquake ravaged Metropolis first. His duties are far bigger than Richard’s – even to the point of sacrificing himself to save the world. That’s something that Richard – for all his nobility – could never do.

The son becomes the father... (okay, Superman has become a dad, I get that), the father becomes the son... (huh? Jor-el has become Superman? or Superman has become Jason? what the heck does that mean?)

Allow for a bit of poetry. It's a description of the passing of generations. The "father" recedes into a more passive role (the "son") when his own son assumes the "father" role. In any case, the line is lifted directly from STM. If you hated it in SR, you should reserve equal ridicule for its use in STM.

3. He address the film being boring, by saying there are plenty of action scenes. Here he is glossing over one of the most popular complaints - lack of fight scene.

FIGHT scenes.

Not action scenes.

No one is saying that there was no action in this film. Just that a superhero like Superman would have been a really exciting opportunity to see some spectacular fight scenes.

A fair criticism. But SR had exactly as many "fights" as STM. So, again, as long as you dislike both films for that reason... you're being consistent.

5. It's the same with Luthor's plot for me...

It's not that it's similar to the old films that bothers me. I get it, it's a homage.

It's that it makes NO sense. Even LESS sense than the first films land plot.

In the first film, he'd bought and secured the land that would be left. He would then OWN the coast. You can at least see where he would be making money here.

But in this film, Lex actual believes two INSANE things: 1. People will want to buy some land on his big green rock... 2. The government will allow him to keep it.

What rights does he have to that land? What ownership does he have? And beyond that, what in the world in stopped the army from just flying in and killing him.

I’d say the SR scheme was more “realistic.” In STM, we’re supposed to believe that after a nuclear blast, and the devastation of California, Lex could satisfy authorities by merely producing the deeds to his legally bought land. In SR, there’s no pretext like that. Lex’s control over nations would be derived by power and the fact that half of them are destroyed – not through implausible legal technicalities.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

You must not know the whole story then. It was explained why Superman never told Lois he was leaving in the script book as well as the screen test. In both he states that if he saw Lois's face and she asked him not to go then he would have never left. Which is something at the time he felt compelled to do. A lot of the stuff many fans complained about was explained but it is just left on the cutting room floor. As I have stated many times Signer didn't do a bad job IMO he did what many writers have tried to do and that is made him more relate able.

That is not an explanation...

Superman would man up and tell everyone. He wouldn't duck away from his responsibilities like a wimp because he thought he'd be too weak too leave if he saw Lois' face.

If going was really that important to him, he'd be the confident grown up he is, and just face it.

And to your second point, as I stated in my post, I felt SR made Superman much less relatable than the Donner films. A combination of tone, questionable actions, a lack of lines and a lack of character building scenes, lead to Superman feeling like a two dimensional persona.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Allow me to agree and disagree with you on this point.

Where I agree: Dude in video says that critics hated Richard. In my experience (and yours, apparently) that’s simply not the case. Even strident critics of SR seemed to like Richard. The complaint was that he was a nicer, nobler guy than Superman. Dude was arguing the wrong thing.

Where I disagree: Richard being a “good man” was an essential aspect to the overall theme of Supes’ alienation. Without the global and mythic responsibilities of a superman, Richard can afford to be a “normal hero” and have the normal life unavailable to Supes. When Lois was in peril, he could devote himself to the single task of rescuing her. On the other hand, Supes had to interrupt his attempt, turn around and attend to earthquake ravaged Metropolis first. His duties are far bigger than Richard’s – even to the point of sacrificing himself to save the world. That’s something that Richard – for all his nobility – could never do.



Allow for a bit of poetry. It's a description of the passing of generations. The "father" recedes into a more passive role (the "son") when his own son assumes the "father" role. In any case, the line is lifted directly from STM. If you hated it in SR, you should reserve equal ridicule for its use in STM.



A fair criticism. But SR had exactly as many "fights" as STM. So, again, as long as you dislike both films for that reason... you're being consistent.

I'm sorry I should have made that clear.

No I am not a big fan of STM either. I have many many problems with it. However, I excuse it and it's sequels to a certain extent, and can enjoy them with nostalgia like I do the Superboy TV series without being quite so critical, because of the time period during which they were produced, and the standard of superhero films/tv shows of the time.

SR has no excuses.

I’d say the SR scheme was more “realistic.” In STM, we’re supposed to believe that after a nuclear blast, and the devastation of California, Lex could satisfy authorities by merely producing the deeds to his legally bought land. In SR, there’s no pretext like that. Lex’s control over nations would be derived by power and the fact that half of them are destroyed – not through implausible legal technicalities.

How would he have any control over anyone, let alone nations?

He started growing a huge rock, that nearly resulted in the death of billions of people.

When the army was sent in, he'd be shot... or he'd surrender and be put in jail...

 

[Dr.]

How would he have any control over anyone, let alone nations?

He started growing a huge rock, that nearly resulted in the death of billions of people.

When the army was sent in, he'd be shot... or he'd surrender and be put in jail...

You can certainly make the case that SR could have been improved if Lex had been shown making advanced weapons and machines from the remaining crystals. (Just a small demonstration would have been sufficient.) Fair call. But it was quite clear from earlier dialogue that the crystals had this capability and that using them in this manner was very much part of Lex’s plan. It was also clear that Lex was simply waiting for NK to complete its formation – whereupon it would wipe out 4/5ths of the US and devastate many other countries too (as depicted in Lex’s map). So the military response that you speak of would be virtually non-existent.

 

[stargazer]

You can certainly make the case that SR could have been improved if Lex had been shown making advanced weapons and machines from the remaining crystals. (Just a small demonstration would have been sufficient.) Fair call. But it was quite clear from earlier dialogue that the crystals had this capability and that using them in this manner was very much part of Lex’s plan. It was also clear that Lex was simply waiting for NK to complete its formation – whereupon it would wipe out 4/5ths of the US and devastate may other countries too (as depicted in Lex’s map). So the military response that you speak of would be virtually non-existent.

Exactly.

4. It made Superman unlikeable. He was depressed, lonely and kind of sulking for half the movie. He had no natural warmth... he came across very ALIEN in every sense of the word... and yet there was no effort to show his human side (other than the one drink he had with Jimmy, which is probably my favourite scene)... to show him eating his mom's home cooked food, to show him in his apartment doing normal things, sleeping, getting ready for work, laughing at a tv show he hasn't seen in 5 years... any of those things, just to ground him as the main character.

They showed both sides of him well enough, imo; even though he had these amazing powers, he also had needs/feelings/desires like the rest of us humans beings. Did you see how sad he felt when Lois said she didn't love him? That's human. Or how happy he was when he realized he had a son? And he seemed very warm to me when he rescued Kitty and smiled back at her. Also when he asked Lois to 'please' come with him during the rooftop interview.

This is cinema. If you want to see Clark going to the bathroom, well you can watch Lois&Clark. t: That's what they do on a tv budget.

 

[B]

I appreciate that the guy has put together a very well thought out and cohesive arguement... but I feel like he glosses over the most jarring of complaints and focuses mostly on the one's he can counter with an arguement.

For instance:

1. He argues that it's wrong to complain about Richard because he is a good, likeable character.

But that's EXACTLY the problem.

We see Superman hitting on and nearly kissing a woman who is engaged to another man. And this man isn't some jerk of a character that we can easily dismiss. We can't just say 'screw it, she'd be happier with Superman' and kind of egg them on like you'd expect. He's actually a really decent guy, who doesn't deserve to be treated in that way.

I watch the movie, and I think 'Richard wouldn't have done that to Superman if the tables were turned'... what does that say about our hero? And why would you include a character in your film that appears more moral, more caring, more emotionally available, less selfish and less cold?

2. He says that the kid being included is great because it's all about the theme of the movie.

Well half of my problem with the movie is it's theme... 'The son becomes the father, the father the son'... which seems to be all it's about!

And it seems to be repeatedly shoved in our face in a way that doesn't resonate with many people, because the repeated line kind of doesn't make sense... it has never made sense to me... saying it over and over again in Marlon Brandos voice doesn't help!

The son becomes the father... (okay, Superman has become a dad, I get that), the father becomes the son... (huh? Jor-el has become Superman? or Superman has become Jason? what the heck does that mean?)

3. He address the film being boring, by saying there are plenty of action scenes. Here he is glossing over one of the most popular complaints - lack of fight scene.

FIGHT scenes.

Not action scenes.

No one is saying that there was no action in this film. Just that a superhero like Superman would have been a really exciting opportunity to see some spectacular fight scenes.

4. His arguement about Superman Returns being it's own movie and therefore having it's own Superman, meaning you can't complain it's unsupermanly... is just nuts.

OF COURSE you can complain when an interpretation of the character steers so far away from the original that you start to feel he is no longer an interpretation of the character, but an OOC version.

Flying off for 5 years into space would perhaps not be unsupermanly if it had an ounce of logic behind it... like any kind of proof that anyone was out there. It might not be so unsupermanly if he'd held a press conference, told everyone and apologised. If he'd considered for a second the implications his being gone might have on things like Lex's court case.

The whole thing just made him look incredibly impulsive, selfish and stupid.

5. It's the same with Luthor's plot for me...

It's not that it's similar to the old films that bothers me. I get it, it's a homage.

It's that it makes NO sense. Even LESS sense than the first films land plot.

In the first film, he'd bought and secured the land that would be left. He would then OWN the coast. You can at least see where he would be making money here.

But in this film, Lex actual believes two INSANE things: 1. People will want to buy some land on his big green rock... 2. The government will allow him to keep it.

What rights does he have to that land? What ownership does he have? And beyond that, what in the world in stopped the army from just flying in and killing him.

He has no defensive strategy, he has no where to hide, and he just SITS THERE playing poker, waiting... waiting for what? Someone to come over on a boat and say 'Hey, that's some cool land you got there, can I have some?'

AHHHHHHHHHH! It's just soooooo stupid!

What's so bad about Superman Returns?

1. 3 significant plot points make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER! - Superman flying off to Krypton for 5 years without telling the world
- Lex's land plot
- Jason's conception (which is never explained, but we have to assume it comes after the events of Superman II... which Lois doesn't rememeber... and yet she does in this film... and yet, if she remembers them sleeping together, why doesnt she remember that he's Clark?!)

2. It came at a time when Superhero films were moving into the modern era... and it planted itself firmly in the past like someone who refuses to buy CD's and will only listen to things that come out on vinyl.

3. While utilising great effects in some scenes, it completely missed the opportunity, with as huge a budget as it had, for some SPECTACULAR visuals. Physical fight scenes between super powered beings for instance (thank god for MOS ).

4. It made Superman unlikeable. He was depressed, lonely and kind of sulking for half the movie. He had no natural warmth... he came across very ALIEN in every sense of the word... and yet there was no effort to show his human side (other than the one drink he had with Jimmy, which is probably my favourite scene)... to show him eating his mom's home cooked food, to show him in his apartment doing normal things, sleeping, getting ready for work, laughing at a tv show he hasn't seen in 5 years... any of those things, just to ground him as the main character.

The problem was that Singer, and to a lesser extent Donner, is that they could only see Superman... they couldn't see Clark. He saw this lonely alien being, stranger from another world, and seemed to just leave out all the rest. All the aspects that make a character tangible as a protagonist.

But at least with Donner's, he had a Superman who WAS naturally warm. Who was likeable and happy and enjoyed helping people. Not some *****ebag who, after leaving her with no explanation for 5 years, would then take Lois up into the air and tell her everyone was crying out for a saviour, as though proving her wrong in this arrogant and resentful way... and then apologises like 'i'm sorry I left you all to fend for yourselves... but it's okay, i'm back now'... If I were Lois, i'd have told him where to shove his apology.

*sigh*

Maybe I should write a blog about how much I hate Superman Returns...

I agree with 99.9% of everything you've said.

I see no point in me listing anything as you've pretty much covered alot of the issues I had with the film & I'd only be reiterating what you've already said.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

You can certainly make the case that SR could have been improved if Lex had been shown making advanced weapons and machines from the remaining crystals. (Just a small demonstration would have been sufficient.) Fair call. But it was quite clear from earlier dialogue that the crystals had this capability and that using them in this manner was very much part of Lex’s plan. It was also clear that Lex was simply waiting for NK to complete its formation – whereupon it would wipe out 4/5ths of the US and devastate many other countries too (as depicted in Lex’s map). So the military response that you speak of would be virtually non-existent.

You genuinely think the military would have taken THAT long to respond to a threat that big??????

...

Exactly.



They showed both sides of him well enough, imo; even though he had these amazing powers, he also had needs/feelings/desires like the rest of us humans beings. Did you see how sad he felt when Lois said she didn't love him? That's human. Or how happy he was when he realized he had a son? And he seemed very warm to me when he rescued Kitty and smiled back at her. Also when he asked Lois to 'please' come with him during the rooftop interview.

This is cinema. If you want to see Clark going to the bathroom, well you can watch Lois&Clark. t: That's what they do on a tv budget.

If I were to go into the complextities and subtlties involved in making a character more accesible to an audience, I would end up alienating alot of people from this debate... and i'd be giving myself a headache that only a qualification in film studies deserves...

But I can tell you for certain, that I found Matt Murdoch in Daredevil more accesible. I found every member of Fantastic Four more accesible (Actually, Sue Storm I'll give you )I found Green Lantern more accesible, Thor, Iron Man, Captain America. I found every single other movie interpretation of a superhero MORE accesible than I found SR's Superman...

I agree with 99.9% of everything you've said.

I see no point in me listing anything as you've pretty much covered alot of the issues I had with the film & I'd only be reiterating what you've already said.

Thankyou!!!!!!

It's always nice to know your not the ONLY one in the village!

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

It's a horrible Superman movie but it's great movie imo.

 

[Dr.]

You genuinely think the military would have taken THAT long to respond to a threat that big??????

...

I think you’re misremembering the film. As far as anyone knew, a bizarre natural disaster was unfolding. The east coast had already suffered an earthquake and things were about to get much worse. Almost all of North America would soon be obliterated – including government, military command and bases. There was no reason to suspect that the strange landmass forming in the Atlantic might be an organized attack. And even if there was confirmation of an attack (from an advanced enemy who could somehow control geological forces), what was a devastated (if not totally wiped-out) military supposed to do – bomb a continent?

 

[stargazer]

But I can tell you for certain, that I found Matt Murdoch in Daredevil more accesible. I found every member of Fantastic Four more accesible (Actually, Sue Storm I'll give you )I found Green Lantern more accesible, Thor, Iron Man, Captain America. I found every single other movie interpretation of a superhero MORE accesible than I found SR's Superman...

Well the only superhero I really care about is Superman. And SR really made me care not only about Superman, but also about Lois, Richard, Jason, etc. I think Superman was adorable in this movie. Sure, he made mistakes, but he realized it and did something about it. I like my Superman more human. I don't want a one-dimensional robot that punches things.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I think we know that I don't agree with the video.

I watched 80% of SR again on T.V (I missed the first part) just to see if I was being too harsh on it and I came away with the same feelings that I've had for a long time.

SR is a blandly nice looking movie with some decent special effect shots but overall it's still a mediocre to bad film. Bosworth isn't a bad actress but she's miscast in this film and instead of playing an adult she is clearly and poorly pretending to be one. Routh is a bad actor and although he looks like Superman and has moments where he shines those are few and far inbetween because of his lack of acting ability. I'm not that stuck on the kid as other people are but the kid is a useless addition that would have hampered future films. If the angle was well played and not gross like it was in the film I wouldn't have cared.

The biggest problem with the film is still the fact that I find it to be fairly uninteresting/boring for the most part almost complete retread of Donner's poorly aged films. The script and Singer weren't good enough to pull off a medatative Superhero film. And yes I do think that the lack of a villain fight hurt the film too.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I think you’re misremembering the film. As far as anyone knew, a bizarre natural disaster was unfolding. The east coast had already suffered an earthquake and things were about to get much worse. Almost all of North America would soon be obliterated – including government, military command and bases. There was no reason to suspect that the strange landmass forming in the Atlantic might be an organized attack. And even if there was confirmation of an attack (from an advanced enemy who could somehow control geological forces), what was a devastated (if not totally wiped-out) military supposed to do – bomb a continent?

Okay, I might be wrong about the military getting involved. I can't really say whether or not they would send helicopters in to investigate if a continent started growing in the middle of the ocean... I have no idea.

But I think your still missing my point.

His plan would never have worked for two reasons. 1. Because you have to OWN something in order to sell it, and he didn't own any of that land officially. and 2. The minute he started trying to sell it, there would be a big red flag over his head saying 'arrest me, it was all my fault'.

Well the only superhero I really care about is Superman. And SR really made me care not only about Superman, but also about Lois, Richard, Jason, etc. I think Superman was adorable in this movie. Sure, he made mistakes, but he realized it and did something about it. I like my Superman more human. I don't want a one-dimensional robot that punches things.

Superman is the most important Superhero to me too.

I used the others, that I don't care about half as much, to illustrate just how badly SR made me not care about Superman.

No one wants a one-dimensional robot that punches things. I like my Superman as human as possible. If you'd actually read my posts above you would see that.

I don't consider what SR did to be making him more human. I also don't conside that he realized or did anything about the mistakes he made. He barely acknowledged them... because Singer doesn't acknowledge them. He paints the guy as a saviour from above, and the only human desire we see him have is to not be alone... which is resloved in the form of his child.

I see that interpretation as very one dimensional.

 

[Dr.]

But I think your still missing my point.

His plan would never have worked for two reasons. 1. Because you have to OWN something in order to sell it, and he didn't own any of that land officially. and 2. The minute he started trying to sell it, there would be a big red flag over his head saying 'arrest me, it was all my fault'.

Hmmm. I’m not sure where you’re getting this notion that Lex is perpetrating some kind of white-collar swindle – as if he plans to sell shares of NK on Wall Street or advertise parcels of NK land in real estate magazines. (Perhaps you’re conflating the STM scheme with the SR one.)

Clearly, Lex’s plan is much more akin to outright blackmail (or even an invasion by advanced aliens). In exchange for riches, he will spare lives and allow select individuals to take up residence on NK – where he’ll be supreme ruler. Very over-the-top, super villain type stuff. But not intrinsically incoherent or illogical.

 

[stargazer]

I don't consider what SR did to be making him more human. I also don't conside that he realized or did anything about the mistakes he made. He barely acknowledged them... because Singer doesn't acknowledge them. He paints the guy as a saviour from above, and the only human desire we see him have is to not be alone... which is resloved in the form of his child.

I see that interpretation as very one dimensional.

I think you just weren't paying attention to the movie. Real attention. In the movie I saw, Superman learned and grew as a character. There was a clear character development for him and the rest of the characters. He was a hero. He was also a man trying to find his place in the universe.

But yeah, to each their own. I see you have your mind made, and I have mine. Enjoy MOS.

 

[LL2K2]

You know, when I first spotted this thread, the first thing I thought of was that Superman story from just over 10 years ago: "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?", whose central villain was a guy named Manchester Black.

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/who/who-intro.php?topic=manchester-black

Sadistic and cynical, Manchester Black waged a vicious war against Superman. He believed that Superman was "corny" and "unreal". The ideals championed and espoused by the Man of Steel stood in direct contrast to the grim, gritty environments of Manchester Black, and seeped into his extremist attitudes and agenda.