Superman Returns Why Don't Some Superman Fans Like Superman Returns?

[Steve Rogers]

You never noticed it was set in 2006? Plus different actors mostly? I don't mean those questions as a form of attack.

Angeloz

I thought it was set seven years after the end of Superman II or something like that. Yes, I noticed the different actors, that doesn't mean anything. The original actors were either too old or dead. Movies bring in different actors for sequels. It has happened before. No, I read or heard in an interview that this was supposed to be a direct sequel to Superman II.

 

[dr collossus]

I am confused as hell now

Yeah that's not your fault. The whole film was very confused and didn't actually work so I wouldn't worry bout it.

 

[Angeloz]

I thought it was set seven years after the end of Superman II or something like that. Yes, I noticed the different actors, that doesn't mean anything. The original actors were either too old or dead. Movies bring in different actors for sequels. It has happened before. No, I read or heard in an interview that this was supposed to be a direct sequel to Superman II.

Hate to break it to you but "Superman II" was released around 1980-1. So it's at least 25 years difference. I recommend treating the first two films as background. But know that "Superman Returns" is a separate universe. Even though there are things similar. Just realise not everything is the same. Also don't let people get to you with the put downs on the film if you can help it.

Angeloz

 

[JClive2007]

I thought Superman Returns was a good movie the only real problem I had with it Clark wasn't seen that much in the movie and it look like Routh didn't had that many speaking parts in the movie. As for the suit I didn't have much of a problem other than colors were dark, as for the kid from the terms of how Superman Returns takes place five years after the fact Superman and Lois had unprotected sex in part two so I can see why they went with that angle. As for action, it had a fair amount the stuff towards at the end was alright.

Plus you can't compare "Batman Begins" with "Superman Returns" one Batman begins was a re launch of the Batman movie series after the turd fest that was "Batman and Robin" Superman Returns was semi sequel to Superman II well how the story is set up.

The biggest problem I had with Superman Returns was the movie game, WTF dude couldn't stop crime, fight the same monsters and the fact the game was pushed back to come out at the same time with the DVD yet the game barley follows the movie storyline is no excuse. Free roaming and his powers are alone worth playing but that's my only problem with Superman Returns

 

[Steve Rogers]

Hate to break it to you but "Superman II" was released around 1980-1. So it's at least 25 years difference.
Angeloz

No, I knew it was released 25 years later, I was just under the impression that it existed in the same universe and took place seben or five years later. Oh well, who cares? Either way, I did not like the film.

 

[dr collossus]

The reason they didn't give Routh much to say is because he's not a very good actor.

 

[mego joe]

It's NOT a direct sequel? Now it makes even less sense. Swing and a miss, Singer. I guess I have no clue what the film was supposed to be, which means, either I am dense, or Singer made a truly attrocious film. I mean I agree, there is so much more to in the Superman lure other than the old films. But if it's not a direct sequel why base the characterization on the old films? I am confused as hell now

Singer :

By jove, I think you've got it!

 

[Steve Rogers]

Nice, I got something.

 

[mego joe]

No, I knew it was released 25 years later, I was just under the impression that it existed in the same universe and took place seben or five years later. Oh well, who cares? Either way, I did not like the film.

According to DVD extras, SR takes place 10 years after Superman's firs appearance in Metropolis which means he left 5 years after his first app. in Metropolis.

It's supposed to be a similar universe with similar themes, but different story details.

 

[dr collossus]

According to DVD extras, SR takes place 10 years after Superman's firs appearance in Metropolis

This adds to another problem I have with the movie. Routh looks too young to be Superman. I personally don't think it matters how old you actually are, before anyone decides to pipe in with Reeve's age whn he first played Sueprman, it's how old you look that's important.

And not only does Routh look too young to be Superman, but if he turned up as Superman 10 years earlier, he'd have been, what, 15?

Just doesn't work.

 

[Angeloz]

Or he looks young for his age. My Dad also had that problem all his life. Ironically he had black hair (it's more white now) and blue eyes. He could even get concession on the bus when he was an adult. Also mentioned people had trouble believing he was in charge in his twenties if they didn't know him because he looked the youngest and probably like a teenager. If it can happen with humans I don't see why not kryptonians especially if they've been in stasis. Or it might just be genetic.

Angeloz

 

[dr collossus]

Hey, I get that too, people often think I'm significantly younger than I am (which is great! ) but that's not right for Superman. He shouldn't look like a child, he's supposed to be Superman.

 

[Dr. Fate]

Hey, I get that too, people often think I'm significantly younger than I am (which is great! ) but that's not right for Superman. He shouldn't look like a child, he's supposed to be Superman.

I agree, Superman, not Supercollege-aged-guy.

I'm 23, most people think I'm older than that because of my beard.

 

[Angeloz]

Brandon looks like a man to me. Also thankfully not a teenager. Ironically he looks older than Welling (who's really older) which he was supposed to.

Angeloz

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The reason they didn't give Routh much to say is because he's not a very good actor.

I disagree heavily, the reason Routh didnt have many lines i because Singer chose to tell most of the story through facial expressions, which i thought was a great way to tell the story.

Watch the movie again, and count how many times the camera focuses on Brandon's face and its expressions and you'll see what i mean.

 

[Angeloz]

Sometimes it wasn't just facial expressions. He made his hands like the wings of a plane to Lois as Clark. But I agree a lot of his emotions were shown through his face.

Angeloz

 

[SuperDaniel]

Still..That IS NOT Superman. That works for Batman. He is the silent guy. Superman is a leader...

Routh and the production team did a great job. Singer and his writers are the ones who screwed up.

 

[Angeloz]

You'd prefer cheesy lines?

Angeloz

 

[SuperDaniel]

Obviously not. In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne was the star of the picture. In SR, I`m not sure Superman is the star. Its either Luthor or Lois Lane to me. THe movie, the final cut, is not centered in Superman...not to the extent of BB, i think...

 

[Angeloz]

Obviously not. In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne was the star of the picture. In SR, I`m not sure Superman is the star. Its either Luthor or Lois Lane to me. THe movie, the final cut, is not centered in Superman...not to the extent of BB, i think...

I guess people have different perceptions over this. 'Cos I thought this was as much about Superman as the first two films. In many ways I felt more than I did as a child. Because it engaged my adult feelings as well as inner child. I grant you the first two films couldn't do that 'cos I was a child when I first saw them.

I'll also point out the villain stole his crystals from the Fortress. Which is a form of revenge against, a then missing, Superman. Plus there was the actual revenge when he came back by getting beaten, stabbed and left for dead (when he fell in the water). Lois was in emotion turmoil when he came back and revealed himself. So they were reacting to Superman whether he was there or not (i.e. "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman"). And I'm not even mentioning what was happening with Superman himself.

Angeloz

 

[El Payaso]

Still..That IS NOT Superman. That works for Batman. He is the silent guy. Superman is a leader...

As a leader, he's a man of action not words.

 

[Super Kal]

but it does help the situation if we hear Superman talk more... after all, he's an active and positive role in his society

 

[Porygon]

Superman Returns was an introspective movie which is why it only performed moderately at the box office. It was good, but not what people wanted or was expecting.

 

[mego joe]

You'd prefer cheesy lines?

Angeloz

I think most people would prefer great dialogue. BUt if all you can write is bad dialogue and steal from the previous films, then perhaps little to no dialogue is the way to go. But I think we've had the dialogue discussion before.

 

[mego joe]

but it does help the situation if we hear Superman talk more... after all, he's an active and positive role in his society

Althought given his role in SR he apparently is neither, so maybe that's why he doesn't talk. Maybe in SRverse he's not a leader or positive role model, as can be seen by his actions in SR. Perhaps the story in SR (10 years into his career) is where he finally realized that is what his role is SUPPOSED to be.