Superman Returns What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

[Dr.]

Is one saying Bosworth's Lois was a continuation of Kidder's and vice versa? Because those two interpretations are like night and day.

Quite so. And even if one claims continuity between SMT/SII and SR (I don’t think you can… or should) the story progression adequately explains the changes we see in the Lois character. E.g., she’s now a mother, she’s in a long-term relationship and she’s still emotionally wounded by Superman’s disappearance. This is not the same madcap, single, career-driven woman - newly infatuated with a god - that we saw in STM.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Quite so. And even if one claims continuity between SMT/SII and SR (I don’t think you can… or should) the story progression adequately explains the changes we see in the Lois character. E.g., she’s now a mother, she’s in a long-term relationship and she’s still emotionally wounded by Superman’s disappearance. This is not the same madcap, single, career-driven woman - newly infatuated with a god - that we saw in STM.

I agree. Lois in SR is not the exact same because (other than different actress and tone of the movie), she's in quite a different position now, with quite a few things that's happened in between.

 

[BH/HHH]

I agree. Lois in SR is not the exact same because (other than different actress and tone of the movie), she's in quite a different position now, with quite a few things that's happened in between.

So are you saying you do see it as a continuation if the character but one thats beeb through some **** in between films?

Because I can't agree with that, she's so different. Margot Kidders Lane was always very friendly toward Clark and was always trying to help him but she didn't really dismiss him or completely ignore him like Bosworth's Lane did.

 

[smallville fan]

Has anybody seen these videos? He raises some interesting points here, especially on how Supes is very much out-of-character with the lack of forward thinking etc.

[YT]gz1WEGY7cqI[/YT]

[YT]3Fb264k0N20[/YT]

 

[Senator Pleasury]

So are you saying you do see it as a continuation if the character but one thats beeb through some **** in between films?

Because I can't agree with that, she's so different. Margot Kidders Lane was always very friendly toward Clark and was always trying to help him but she didn't really dismiss him or completely ignore him like Bosworth's Lane did.

Of course SR had its differences with STM and SII (actors, tone, visuals, etc) and Bostworth wasn't replicating Kidder's Lois the way Routh did with reeve's roles. But when lois has poassed through Superman leaving, her relationship with Richard, Jason and five years of Clark's absence, this is where her character goes.

I saw her being quite friendly to Clark when she first said hello to Clark and introduced him to her boyfriend/husband-to-never-be Richard and Jason. But Clark wasn't nearly the most important person in her life and time had gone through. And I also assume Clark didn't say good-bye to Lois either, so why would she still feel so close to this guy?

 

[BH/HHH]

Of course SR had its differences with STM and SII (actors, tone, visuals, etc) and Bostworth wasn't replicating Kidder's Lois the way Routh did with reeve's roles. But when lois has poassed through Superman leaving, her relationship with Richard, Jason and five years of Clark's absence, this is where her character goes.

I saw her being quite friendly to Clark when she first said hello to Clark and introduced him to her boyfriend/husband-to-never-be Richard and Jason. But Clark wasn't nearly the most important person in her life and time had gone through. And I also assume Clark didn't say good-bye to Lois either, so why would she still feel so close to this guy?

Fair point on the last bit and I know people change but there's no way
I can associate this Lois like
I can with Kidder's at all no matter what happened to her in her life. They're two totally different characters for me that just happen to have the same name.

 

[Human Torch]

Fair point on the last bit and I know people change but there's no way
I can associate this Lois like
I can with Kidder's at all no matter what happened to her in her life. They're two totally different characters for me that just happen to have the same name.

Yeah,that's basically how I feel.

 

[sf2]

I think the worst is to be a superman fan.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I think the worst is to be a superman fan.

I don't think being a Superman fan is that bad.

 

[BH/HHH]

I was gonna say its damn good, we have various movies, comics, animated shows etc we're damn lucky if you ask me

 

[sf2]

ya, ya. compare to other DC heroes, like flash, wonderwoman etc...

 

[doobie]

I think SR is the flipside to Batman and Robin. One is overly silly but has serious parts that don't fit (like Alfred dying) and one is overly dry and serious but has silly parts that don't fit (like Lex being camp). Both stand as the two extremes of how to get DC comics wrong on film.

 

[eatup]

The only thing that turned me off SR was the fact that Singer not only tried to emulate the StarCraft commander ("Are you willing to go all the way?") cut scene with Lex on the kryptonite island, he even tried to copy the dialogue style... (Which in Starcraft was, you show the commander of a battlecruiser smoking a cigar, zoom in on a ticking clock for 7 minutes [I'm exagerating a bit here], no dialogue or music whatsoever, then the oneliner "are you willing to go all the way, Commander?") That irked me off to no end b/c 1. It's very boring and 2. It only worked for StarCraft.

(P.S.: It's equivalent in SR was showing Lex smoking a cigar, playing poker with his cronies. It goes on for about 7 minutes, no dialogue, no action, no music. Then, "Lex, are millions of people gonna die?" from the mistress... "Not millions, billions" says Lex)...

 

[ARBH]

My issue with Superman Returns is the fact that it tried so very hard to be a sequel to Superman The Movie, yet lacked the charisma that S:TM had. You can cast an actor that looks and sounds like Christoper Reeve, but Reeve nailed the duality of the characters. His Clark was affable, and his Superman was the embodiment of hope. Statuesque yet charming.

Routh had the appearance and the voice, but lacks the acting chops to pull off the duality of the character. maybe it was the script or the directing that limited Routh, but in other films I have seen him in, made me feel that he is just not a good actor.

I understand that Returns was supposed to be a bit more somber in tone. I get that it is about Kal-el trying to find his place in a world that seemingly moved on from him. But it is a stupid notion. He had spent more time on Earth than on Krypton. He was raised as an earthling by loving parents who protected him and raised him with the values that made him the beacon of hope that he is. So, to believe that he would just up and abandon the world that provided him everything (love, kindness, friends, family, food...) just to try to find remnants of a dead planet he has no connection to, other than the soil he was born on seems ridiculous and very uncharacteristic.

 

[BLobo]

Lex Luthor´s plan is one of the dumbest things i´ve heard in my entire life, and the movie doesn´t have a decent fight scene.

That´s basically it.

 

[eatup]

Lex Luthor´s plan is one of the dumbest things i´ve heard in my entire life, and the movie doesn´t have a decent fight scene.

That´s basically it.

This too. With the Kryptonian tech that Luthor stole, he could have raised an army of Super-Mechs or something along that line to take over Australia... But no, he just wants a piece of crummy land in the middle of nowhere without any fresh water bodies or infrastructure...

 

[BLobo]

The movie had some good scenes and a lot of emotional value. It had potential, because it actually had a great director behind. They only needed a better plot and a little more action. I´m the type of guy who gets bored at too much action, but Superman Returns just has none of it.

 

[Dr.]

Lex Luthor´s plan is one of the dumbest things i´ve heard in my entire life...

With the Kryptonian tech that Luthor stole, he could have raised an army of Super-Mechs or something along that line to take over Australia... But no, he just wants a piece of crummy land in the middle of nowhere without any fresh water bodies or infrastructure...

In STM, Lex’s plan was to strike it rich: the “worthless” desert land that he purchased would suddenly become prime real estate once the rest of California had sunk into the Pacific. But why wouldn’t the authorities simply arrest the newly prosperous Lex (a known and wanted criminal, after all)? Or why wouldn’t the authorities be able to connect a sabotaged nuke to the person who gained most from the ensuing devastation? Compared to this, the plan in SR was genius.

There’s dialogue in SR that tells us that the crystals can generate advanced tools and weapons. And presumably - once New Krypton had finished growing (annihilating most of North America and Europe in the process) - Lex would have begun making those items. I.e., NK would have been made more hospitable; and any pockets of resistance still left would be dispatched with the alien weaponry.

Now, fair to argue that Lex actually activating a crystal to create a high-tech laser gun or a lush garden on NK would have been more dramatically effective than just waiting around playing cards. But the details of his intended scheme were clear enough.