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

[CLARKY]

I-do-not-understand-this-hate-of-SR. It is beyond me. Disliking some things well, yes, OK, "this was bad, this was poor", but hating a movie the way the so-called Superman fans do it, is beyond me.

 

[Angeloz]

Thanks Pickle-El for the news but why this thread?

Angeloz

 

[GreenKToo]

Thats what I dont get either. I thought S.R. was good, just not great. I will never understand why people post on a forum for it if they hate it so much because minds are made up about S.R. and they will not change either way.

I-do-not-understand-this-hate-of-SR. It is beyond me. Disliking some things well, yes, OK, "this was bad, this was poor", but hating a movie the way the so-called Superman fans do it, is beyond me.

 

[Super Kal]

I guess Superman means a lot to some people, and they feel that Singer didn't do him any justice

 

[Thot]

Many here have a done a great job of listing most of SR's problems. For me , there were really only two reasonably good things about the film.

1. The fantastic airplane/shuttle scene

2. Brandon Routh (a bit green, but promising)


I've tired of listing all the negatives, but the worst of the worst for me were the freaking "kid" aspect, Supe's earth abandonment, ice-cold Lois and the piss-poor suit design. None-the-less, I'm hoping against hope for the next one.

 

[Carnage921]

Can someone explain to me why Superman fans seem not to like Superman Returns?

Personally, I think it's a great film, and one of the best superhero movies of all time, probably only behind Batman Begins and Spider-Man 2.

What don't they like? The fact that it's a rehash/homage to Donner? Who cares? It's the start of the franchise, what better way to start out?

Not enough action? Call me crazy, but I think the airplane sequence is one of the coolest things I've ever seen a movie.

The suit? I mean, c'mon, it looks fine. Compare it to what Batman and the X-Men wear relative to the comics.

So what is it? To me, other than Lois Lane (Bosworth sucks) the casting is great, the production values and effects are MAGNIFICENT and the story is a classic Superman story. What do people hate? That he has a kid?

Sorry, I'm not the hugest Superman fan in the world, but I loved this movie and it seemed like a fantastic adaptation to me. What don't people like about it?

i like the movie, i do. i like the things you mentioned but supes is the boyscout. this one didnt have that feeling. perry doesnt even finish the truth, justice,american way slogan.

 

[Angeloz]

If Brandon Routh is green Thot does that mean he's a Vulcan? I didn't notice pointy ears.

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

If "Superman Returns" was such a failure and made more money than "Batman Begins" then why is there a sequel to "Batman Begins"?

Angeloz

It may have had a higher gross, but it did not have a higher net. The SR budget was much more than the BB budget.

Also, BB successfully re-introduced the Batman character to the movie going audience and hard core comic fans alike. WHile there will always be detractors for comic films, you don't see the division amongst the Batman fans over BB that there is with the Superman fans over SR.

Has there ever been a "Fire Christopher Nolan" thread on the Batman boards?

Also, I think there is a difference in the previous performance of the two characters in their previous movie franchises.

Batman and Robin was only out 8 years before Batman Begins and relativey fresh in people's minds. A not so 'fresh' feelin if you know what I mean. BB had to overcome the negative opinion of that film to make BB successful. A complete reboot restarted the franchise.

Superman's last film part IV was 19 years old when SR came out. THe movie going audience probably had mostly either forgetten about it or didn't even know about it. Plus, you have Smallville doing well on TV, plus you have the fondly remembered performances of Christopher Reeve from the aforementioned Superman franchise.

I think when you combine these ideas, the general public was probably more excited and more easily attracted to a restart of the SUperman film franchise and getting people out would be an easier sell than getting them back to a Batman franchise. Therefore, expectations were higher for SR than for BB. WHich is Ok, because the budgets reflect that.

However, when BB hits, it gets great reviews and great word of mouth. The overwhelming feeling about the BB franchise is positive. People are excited about what could come next.

SR is a very different situation. Before the film comes out there are detractors based on spoiler information. WHen it hits, there is still good turnout, but I think it is based more on the strength of the character himself than interest in the storyline and trailer promotion for the film. Reveiws are mixed. There are some extrememly positive reviews and some extremely negative reviews and there are some in the middle. The fan base is divided (don't think you can argue that). There are internet sites devoted to removing Singer and Routh from the franchise and calling for a complete reboot. There are sites that exist solely to lambast SR and Singer.

There is absolutely no backlash like that whatsoever for BB.

WB obviously knows it can make another profitable film with Batman based on budget needs and positive response to the first film.

With Superman, a direct sequel comes with the knowledge that SR divided the core fan base, and is maligned on messge boards and blogs not just for say a 'slow,' 'not enough action' movie, or 'rehashed' villain plot, but for the single original addition to the SUperman mythos from SR- Jason, superson. The sequel HAS to deal with that. However, that is one of the most divisive if not THE most devisive element in SR amongst fans.

So, with a sequel, Jason has to be dealt with, otherwise, it's not really a sequel, it's a reboot, or pre-quel or something else. If a sequel doesn't deal with Jason, why was he introduced at all. So, you have a sequel that has to overcome not enough action, faster pace, more original villain plot and more action oriented villain which can all easily be done and are very doable, ala Wrath of Khan. Unfortunately, they also have to overcome Jason, the single element of SR that seems like a set up for a sequel and it's the most divisive thing in SR.

Imagine if at the end of BB instead of a Joker card it was some acoutrement that indicated the next villain would be the Bookworm for the old TV series. Would anyone have been excited about that? No. The Joker, yes. Bookworm, no. So at the end of SR, we are set up for a movie about Superman's illegitimate son and his dysfunctional relationship with Superman. It just isn't an exciting premise. Is it interesting? It could be, but it's not exciting or in keeping with the essence of the character. It really comes out of left field when it comes to what people like about the Superman character. No one says, "I like Superman b/c he's a dysfunctional father." No one would even have thought of him as a dysfunctional father until Singer introduced the concept in SR. Consequently, you have all the 'hate' for SR and a direct sequel.

So, that is why BB is getting a sequel, people are interested and excited by what was set up in BB and there is no back-lash from a divided fan base.

 

[mego joe]

I guess Superman means a lot to some people, and they feel that Singer didn't do him any justice

You can make a bad movie and people not like it, but they go on. With SR I think you are right that SUperman does mean a lot to some people and consequently, I think there are two different avenues of dissatisfaction people have with the film.

1. Rehashed villain plot, slow/ boring, lack of action, confusing 'vague' history

All these concerns can be remedied in a sequel b/c they are just examples of people disliking aspects of a film that are not inherent to the characterization of the character or that can't be easily fixed in a subsequent film. But, some people didn't like these aspect. Nothing wrong with them, just not good.

2. Characterization and storyline was just wrong for Superman. This is why I think 'haters' are so tenacious and unwilling to let go. We feel that SInger's version was out-and-out a mischaracterization of Superman and that Singer just doesn't get the character. That's a big difference than just saying it was boring, or lacked action. The mischaracterization and dealing with the fruits of the mischaracterization (Jason) aren't going to got away in a sequel, if anything Jason will be played up, and Singer has said as much.

Personally, I feel SR was not only bad, but worng. And I think it gives a tacet approval to things that are a truly huge problem for America and the world. Not necessarily children that are born out of wedlock, but instead men who don't act responsibly when it comes to being in sexual relationships and children who don't get raised by their parents.

I also think it diminishes the importance of a child's father to the child and IMO the movie asks the viewer to accept this as 'OK' and acceptable behavior.

I say NO! It is not acceptable behvoir. A father is just as important as a mother. Both parents are equally important and integral to raisin a child properly. It's not OK to 'accept' the irresponsible attitude towards sex that is portrayed in the film.

The movie is not simply about Superman and whether or not it's a good story, it addresses problems we face in our society and comments as if to say "these are not really problems that can be controlled, we just have to accept them." I say NO! The issues raised are about values and moral responsibility.

I think you have to stand up for the values you belive in. I think you have to stand up for what you belive is right and you have to be willing to fight for change.

I am willing to fight for change. I am willing to stand up for he integrity of fathers. I am willing espouse the value I place on acting responsibly in a sexual relationship- a responsiblity that begins before intercourse and extends to an emotional responsiblity to be there for the woman. I belive it is the moral obligation for parents to raise their own children and that if people are going to be in a sexual relationship the reality is that children are possiblie and that that child, conceived or un-conceived is more improtant than the act of sex between the couple.

I think our current culture is losing the sense of responsibilty in these areas. I think the character of Superman in SR doesn't share these same values with me. I also think the character in the comics and othe films DOES share them with me. I think that it is wrong for SUperman to be portrayed this way in SR.

The issue goes beyond being 'just a movie.' It's an extension of the value in our culture. That is why I think some 'haters' can't let go and continuily fight and argue for a change in future Superman films. The issues are bigger than just a film.

 

[Angeloz]

It may have had a higher gross, but it did not have a higher net. The SR budget was much more than the BB budget.

My point was with the gross. We can't know all the other numbers. And I don't care except that I hope it leads to a sequel. That's all.

Also, BB successfully re-introduced the Batman character to the movie going audience and hard core comic fans alike. WHile there will always be detractors for comic films, you don't see the division amongst the Batman fans over BB that there is with the Superman fans over SR.

Has there ever been a "Fire Christopher Nolan" thread on the Batman boards?

I happen to think that "Superman Returns" also successfully re-introduced Superman. It may not have been Spider-Man numbers but it made more than Batman did. If that can get a sequel then I don't see why Superman can't also get one.

Also, I think there is a difference in the previous performance of the two characters in their previous movie franchises.

Batman and Robin was only out 8 years before Batman Begins and relativey fresh in people's minds. A not so 'fresh' feelin if you know what I mean. BB had to overcome the negative opinion of that film to make BB successful. A complete reboot restarted the franchise.

Superman's last film part IV was 19 years old when SR came out. THe movie going audience probably had mostly either forgetten about it or didn't even know about it. Plus, you have Smallville doing well on TV, plus you have the fondly remembered performances of Christopher Reeve from the aforementioned Superman franchise.

I think when you combine these ideas, the general public was probably more excited and more easily attracted to a restart of the SUperman film franchise and getting people out would be an easier sell than getting them back to a Batman franchise. Therefore, expectations were higher for SR than for BB. WHich is Ok, because the budgets reflect that.

However, when BB hits, it gets great reviews and great word of mouth. The overwhelming feeling about the BB franchise is positive. People are excited about what could come next.

SR is a very different situation. Before the film comes out there are detractors based on spoiler information. WHen it hits, there is still good turnout, but I think it is based more on the strength of the character himself than interest in the storyline and trailer promotion for the film. Reveiws are mixed. There are some extrememly positive reviews and some extremely negative reviews and there are some in the middle. The fan base is divided (don't think you can argue that). There are internet sites devoted to removing Singer and Routh from the franchise and calling for a complete reboot. There are sites that exist solely to lambast SR and Singer.

There is absolutely no backlash like that whatsoever for BB.

I don't know much about the reaction to "Batman Begins" because I've only visited Bluetights Batman section a few times and it's rather small. Nor have I read everything. I liked the film though I've only seen all of it once and from when he returns to Gotham section on the DVD (and the rest i.e. I skipped the start). I did this because I'd spent the night viewing the extras and was tired. I might see it again this year I hope.

As for overcoming perceptions I think Superman also had to. It may not of had a bomb in recent memory. Though I remember it as a kid and it being disappointing for me. Which has stayed with me (those feelings). But I'm not the average viewer. However there was something else to overcome and that was the Christopher Reeve legacy. In the publics mind he is Superman on the big screen. He was for me. I've loved many versions and accepted them. But even I was unsure if I could accept someone other than Reeve as Superman on film. Thankfully I could. I think for some this would be an obstacle. I also remember hearing about Nick Cage. Luckily I didn't find out about the other shenanigans until after I saw the film last year. Though I still don't know everything nor do I want to.

If you want to know what convinced me to see the film it was the clips, trailers and TV spots. These things usually convince me not to see films. It's very rare for it to be the other way round. I had to overcome quite a few obstacles to go see it (as mentioned above). They were mainly the past. I doubt I would be the only one affected by this. As for "Smallville" that too can be a negative because some of the hardcore fans might not like the film because they view it as a betrayal of the TV Series to do so. They're often young and may not get that it isn't a betrayal to like more than one version of something. I'm not saying everyone - just some. And I guess it's not just the TV fans either.

But really my main point was it made as much and a little bit more from the worldwide figures as Batman did. If one is considered a success then I don't think it means the other is a failure.

WB obviously knows it can make another profitable film with Batman based on budget needs and positive response to the first film.

With Superman, a direct sequel comes with the knowledge that SR divided the core fan base, and is maligned on messge boards and blogs not just for say a 'slow,' 'not enough action' movie, or 'rehashed' villain plot, but for the single original addition to the SUperman mythos from SR- Jason, superson. The sequel HAS to deal with that. However, that is one of the most divisive if not THE most devisive element in SR amongst fans.

So, with a sequel, Jason has to be dealt with, otherwise, it's not really a sequel, it's a reboot, or pre-quel or something else. If a sequel doesn't deal with Jason, why was he introduced at all. So, you have a sequel that has to overcome not enough action, faster pace, more original villain plot and more action oriented villain which can all easily be done and are very doable, ala Wrath of Khan. Unfortunately, they also have to overcome Jason, the single element of SR that seems like a set up for a sequel and it's the most divisive thing in SR.

Imagine if at the end of BB instead of a Joker card it was some acoutrement that indicated the next villain would be the Bookworm for the old TV series. Would anyone have been excited about that? No. The Joker, yes. Bookworm, no. So at the end of SR, we are set up for a movie about Superman's illegitimate son and his dysfunctional relationship with Superman. It just isn't an exciting premise. Is it interesting? It could be, but it's not exciting or in keeping with the essence of the character. It really comes out of left field when it comes to what people like about the Superman character. No one says, "I like Superman b/c he's a dysfunctional father." No one would even have thought of him as a dysfunctional father until Singer introduced the concept in SR. Consequently, you have all the 'hate' for SR and a direct sequel.

So, that is why BB is getting a sequel, people are interested and excited by what was set up in BB and there is no back-lash from a divided fan base.

Interesting thoughts. On Jason he might be a disaster in a sequel and equally he might not be. I'm prepared to wait and see. The irony is I thought he might have been a disaster for "Superman Returns" when I saw the clips. I didn't go on forums nor read spoilers until after I saw the film. It was what made me go to the forums (seeing the film the first time). And eventually I joined three of them months later when I felt compelled to comment. I never felt that way for any film ever. I have for television and for a little while a book series (read but never joined) that happened to have films too. But with Jason I guessed what he might mean because I've seen all of the Christopher Reeve films and have loved them since childhood. I feared I'd hate it - I didn't - I loved him and what he meant. That's why I'm prepared to wait and see because I realise it could be beautiful. It also could be horribly tragic (in a good or bad way). As I said I'm going to wait and see with no prejudgement. Though I hope for the best.

As for Batman the irony is I'm not worried whether I see a sequel or not. I don't mind if I do. I also hope I may like it. But I'm not fussed either way. But Superman I really do want to see it (a sequel). I hope I'll love it. As well as maybe the wankers at IMAX might actually show it in my country and especially my state even if it's not exactly near. The irony is I think because of "Superman Returns" and the previous Harry Potter (that was perfect for IMAX but also wasn't shown here) they are showing "Spider-Man 3". As well as the next Harry Potter when it's out later this year. If I like it (Harry Potter in a regular cinema) I hope I'll see it there (which will make it a first for me). I really am pissed about not being able to see the other two films though. Oh well. My main point is just because some are interested or not interested in a film doesn't hold true for everyone. I loved "Superman Returns" and I've loved Superman most of my life. But the former is why I'm here. It may be looked down upon by some but it isn't true of everyone. Nor can it be said for the fans nor general public nor even the critics. It's just people seeing what they want to through blinders. They can't accept a different version for whatever reason (the "fans" that is). As for the general audience as well as the critics the same principle applies as to whether they could like that version or not. If Rotten Tomatoes can be believed then most did it seems. I say - I could and did - which I consider it a blessing. But I'm an individual. I really do hope for a sequel and time will tell if there is one.

Angeloz

 

[KuroTsurugi]

ok Now im a noob to the boards and i would definately like to put down my two cents on this topic. I will start out by saying and probably re-iterating throughout the entirety, Superman Returns was a good movie. It was a horrible Superman movie. Im not going to belittle the thread or call anyone stupid. I will however explain why Superman fans should not like this movie as a Superman movie. I unlike many still have hope for the next film because i would hate to think that it could continue to go this way. now to get started.

Superman Returns:
Quite possibly one of the biggest travesties to infect the world of comic books and cinema, Superman Returns would be more adequately named The Last Time Well Ever See Un-Inspired screenwriters tackle Mythology and Fail. However, Lets take a look at this in a more precise manner.
The acting in Superman Returns was the best part. Lead by Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor the film was given new life. Many critics have said that Kate Bosworths Mommy Lois Lane lacked in the movie and that she may have been too young to play the role. I would once again like to say that an actor can only do what they are scripted to do, and act what they are scripted to act. Kate Bosworths Lois Lane was the best Lois Lane that she could have been. She wasnt given the role of the feisty cutthroat reporter. She was given the role of a mother scorned by a deadbeat super boyfriend. Brandon Routh tackled the role as if he were Christopher Reeves incarnate. If you have seen Christopher Reeves and grown to love him as superman, you will think he came out of the grave. This doesnt take away from the movie and is quite refreshing for those looking to recapture the nostalgia of the man in blue. However i found this to be one of the worst parts of the movie. They had a chance with this movie to overcome the well implanted shadow of Christopher Reeves on everything superman related. Instead they chose to direct this actor to kill his career by acting like someone else. Way to go...
Speaking of Nostalgia, if you were a big fan of the first and second movies, you might notice how Superman Returns is simply a revised combination of both plots, and on occasion direct translation. For instance, if we can all forget that we live in the United States of Amnesia for one second and dig deep in the recesses of our minds. Superman at one point in the old movies had a kryptonite necklace placed around his neck and was defeated in a drowning like manner by Lex Luthor in Luthors personal pool. There is a very similar, but more hardcore version of this in Superman Returns, except replace the pool with an ocean and replace the necklace with a shiv....
The special Fx of the movie were astounding and truly a spectacle to behold. Never for one second did Superman Look like he was fake or computer generated. Superman flew through the air and caught very heavy things. Superman took over 100 bullets in the chest, and God Be Holy he even took a bullet straight to the eyeball. I would like you as the reader to find my sarcasm simply playful as I continue to mock this production, because in all honesty this movie was sold as the return of Superman, but fell short in almost every way accept for directing and acting. Superman over the years, on tv alone has take more bullets than the history of movies put together. He has flown in the old movies and lifted heavy things, even moved large vehicles. My question to those that wished to re-vamp this series is, Did you want a paycheck or did you care about the mythology of this character and the importance of carrying the symbolic S that is the second most identified symbol on the planet into a new generation? With all the special fx that we have acquired in the new age of technology that is reborn everyday, we still pay 8.50 or more to go to the movies and see someone fly around and catch things for nearly 3 hours. Superman never threw a punch, never went through any walls, and quite honestly never really fought anything in the whole movie, so for anyone who says that it had action. It had about as much action as a money shot. In other words the action was tired and old! In climax of the movie, which is an overstatement by definition, we got to see the heroic trials of the man of steel as he faced off against a LAND MASS. This is why i find it hilarious that the newest quote on the superherohype page from the dude was "Superman is only as good as his Villians". If you knew that simple fact. Why did you friggin ignore it with the first movie. IT WAS A FRIGGIN LANDMASS for crying out loud!!!!!!!!!
The Superman movie carries many themes that we have seen in movies before such as:
Lets see how many times I can do the "Jesus on the Cross" Pose between credit roles.
The Legacy of the Father is passed on to the son.
Supermans bastard child.
(Record Skipping)

Now even though I have been highly critical of this movie, I hope to make my case and point here. I hope that this is enough to make you as the reader realize the pure idiocy I have accused these writers of possessing. The movie is called Superman Returns, yet for the entire movie they preach to us the importance of the legacy passed on between father and son. Then they introduce the Son of the man who for ages in comics has never attempted to have a child simply because no writer wanted to end the characters ability to steal the show. Superman is the end all. He was cloned so that they could create a super-boy and negate the question that these writers felt they had to approach. Can Superman, as an ALIEN, have a child with a human? If the movie was indeed Superman Returns, why did I leave the film wondering if the next cinematic adventure would be about Superman or his bastard son? Now I must admit the kid is awesomely cute, but there is still one dilemma. How can the movie be about Superman if its about his son and the continuation of the legacy? Why did I leave the theatre thinking that Superman was going to fly into space and leave the life of his son up to Actor James Marsden, who quite honestly appears more super than the man of steel in the movie? He did not have superpowers and still managed to do more for the other characters in the movie than superman did with his tired routine of flying around and catching stuff. He flew into a hurricane with a rickety plane to save his wife and "child". No wonder he left the x men for this movie. He should have just been superman and saved the planet.
I could go on for days but hopefully they will give Superman another 10 year break and try like all hell to erase memories of this movie, because I would hate to see them try to salvage this movie with a sequel where they make just as many mistakes. Should they find the ability to make this up by backpeddling like the flash on an atv, i would be the first to give them complete praise and props.

Hints for a good sequel:
1. Do not make Lex Luther a mastermind that tries to take over the world with real estate!! Take a hint from the cartoons and use the character for what he was created. He is the brain, Superman is the brawn. Superman knows like all hell who is behind all the evil doing. THe greatest thing about this is that he CANT STOP LUTHER because luther is an incredible Mastermind. I dont think i need to break down what a mastermind is.
2. Give Brandon Routh the ability to take the character where he wants to as the actor that you chose. Shed the Reeves gimmick and Bring SUPERMAN INTO THE NEWER TIMES!
3. When you use a Character like Superman in the new age you dont need to buy into the flashy hollywood style of film, but it helps to take the certain things that it can offer you. It can offer you the ability to create details out of simple things that make your story seem more intense without it being a show case. Case and point being something they did in the matrix movies no matter how much you like or dislike them. Neo flew into the air which was cool, but not the greatest part about him flying. Before he flew he went into the pose that rippled the matrix and THEN FLEW. Details!!!
4. Whoever thought that a land mass would be the best villian for superman to fight as a climax HAD TO BE the same person that thought the Hulk should fight a THE WATER and an Overgrown french poodle. COME ON GUYS!
5. If you are going to use the option of having a kid that COULD OR COULD NOT BE SUPermans child as a plot twist, TIE the end up before dragging it out two movies. While your at it, remember that its superman, not Super Stalker. Do not have him peering into peoples private lives and speaking to children in the dark staring wide eyed. Very Creepy.
6. Have superman throw a punch!!!!! like i said about details. To punch something or someone into a dead stop against a brick wall and the detail available now to show said brick wall shattering is almost too juicy to NOT WANT.
7. If you want to take the kid out of the picture and make this all seem more fluid. Put parasite in the next movie. If he tries to take supermans powers from the kid and the kid has no powers. GOOD JOB and Good Climax build up and Execution. If he does take the powers from the kid and the kid dies, NOW YOU can have sappy superman fighting over the loss of a dead son. Then you can have him flying around feeling sorry for himself after the battle is over. This also gives him the plot device of friction between lois lane and himself, which could have worked so much better than a landmass. 8. Last but not least. DO NOT USE UP STORYLINES BEFORE YOU SHOULD. When superman fell back to earth after throwing the big land mass they flashed up the newspaper, "Superman Dead". Now you just completely made it a horrible idea to do the death of superman story plot unless we wait 10 years. Dont play your cards out of turn for christ sake.

P.S. I think thats a substantial breakdown of this film and the problems that people have with it. Heres to the next one and the last time we will have to speak of this. Later.
If someone would be so kind. I for some reason cant start a post, but if you wish to take this and put it at the top of new thread and name it "THIS is why Superman Fans dislike Superman Returns" I would be ever grateful.

I think i mentioned it before, but in case i missed it in my typing fury, If you are going to restart a franchise, you have to make the conscious decision as a fan to Make a tribute or a Continuation of the story. SR was a perfect example of fanboys paying homage and not looking to continue the story with ample thought or execution towards the main character or mythos.

 

[Agentsands77]

My question to those that wished to re-vamp this series is, Did you want a paycheck or did you care about the mythology of this character and the importance of carrying the symbolic S that is the second most identified symbol on the planet into a new generation? With all the special fx that we have acquired in the new age of technology that is reborn everyday, we still pay 8.50 or more to go to the movies and see someone fly around and catch things for nearly 3 hours. Superman never threw a punch, never went through any walls, and quite honestly never really fought anything in the whole movie, so for anyone who says that it had action. It had about as much action as a money shot.

So the mythology of Superman and the importance of his S comes down to being able to show off his powers in cartoony fight scenes by punching through stuff? Wow. That idea right there is what has led people to believe that Superman is a shallow, uninteresting character.

In climax of the movie, which is an overstatement by definition, we got to see the heroic trials of the man of steel as he faced off against a LAND MASS.

Yes, a fantastic and dramatic feat of strength and suffering, especially since it contained kryptonite. It was Superman using his powers. Does every superhero film have to climax with a big fight sequence?

This is why i find it hilarious that the newest quote on the superherohype page from the dude was "Superman is only as good as his Villians". If you knew that simple fact. Why did you friggin ignore it with the first movie. IT WAS A FRIGGIN LANDMASS for crying out loud!!!!!!!!!

The villain was actually Lex Luthor, who created the landmass, and was defeated by Superman hurling the product of his master plan into outer space.

The Superman movie carries many themes that we have seen in movies before such as:
Lets see how many times I can do the "Jesus on the Cross" Pose between credit roles.

The theme of sacrifice, as epitomized by the crucifixion, never gets old. And it's not like the film goes out of its way to put Superman in the cross pose.

The Legacy of the Father is passed on to the son.

A timeless theme. Myths often rely on the same thematic material, just told in different ways. Why is this one off limits?

The movie is called Superman Returns, yet for the entire movie they preach to us the importance of the legacy passed on between father and son.

The entire movie?

In SUPERMAN RETURNS, the appearance of his son is intregal to Superman's story arc... for a while, Superman has felt alone and isolated. It's why he visits Krypton - he's seeking some kindred spirit. It's only when he returns to earth that he finds what he was missing. Someone like him... his son.

Can Superman, as an ALIEN, have a child with a human?

Apparently.

How can the movie be about Superman if its about his son and the continuation of the legacy?

Uh, how could it not be about Superman. Superman would be the central character, even if the story revolves around his son (which would probably be more of a subplot than anything).

 

[kedrell]

Admittedly, I am not a Superman fan or even a DC fan(although I loved Donner's movie and still think it's the best super-hero film ever made to date) but I didn't mind the new costume. What I did mind was:

• Story (Some feel it was too derivative of S:TM and wanted something NEW.)
• Characters (Some feel the addition of a kid diluted the bittersweet notion of Superman being the last of his kind. Others were miffed at the addition of Richard, when the more appealing triangle has always been Clark, Lois and Superman.)
• Characterization (Some feel Superman was too emo and saw a creepy stalker angle to his actions. Others didn't dig the idea of him being a deadbeat dad and leaving w/o even saying good-bye to the woman he loved. Then there were those who thought Lois was a beyotch for being so cold and detached to the man that loved her more than life itself.)
• Lack of action (Some feel the plane sequence was not enough for a summer action movie based on a superhero comic book character.)
• Cinemaphotography (Some feel it was too dark for Superman and should have been brighter.)
• Tone (Some feel the film was overly depressing, which is antithetical to the joy and elation one would normally get from such an inspiring character.)

I'll stop there. There ARE other issues however, which have been discussed here and elsewhere ad nauseam.

1. The lack of logic established in the film-Superman lands on a piece of Kryptonite and is de-powered and getting his a$$ handed to him by humans. Then moments later in the movie, with a piece or pure kryptonite in him, he is able to pic up that very same landmass made of Kryptonite, with shards of it coming out right next to him, and lift it off into space.

2 That Singer made it into, admittedly, a chick flick. Superman 1 and 2 had a love story element, but it was a part of the whole story of Superman and not the main thrust.

4. There is a mortal character in the movie who seems more heroic than the hero the movie is about.

5. At the end of the day, the movie had nothing to say or do. It just sits there.

6. The movie was more about Lois then Superman.

7. The main character really doesn't say or do much of anything and is basically, at most times, just set dressing in his own movie.

8. That it stole so much from the Donner movies. I love the Donner movies. But this was downright plagerism. Furthermore, Singer even said, he took him down the same journey as that movie. Since we have already been on that journey, we don't need to take it again. For the record, to me it was just stealing.

9. When an unfinished Directors cut of a 30 year old sequel released the same year is better than the new movie, with more action, heart, and character, then something is wrong. Fans got to compare a new movie to a newly released old movie, and the newly released older movie was truer to the character than the new movie ever could be.

To me, this movie has a lot in common with the Hulk movie. They fell flat and became boring even though each had some truly awesome scenes in them(Superman saving the plane/Hulk vs. the Army).

 

[mego joe]

My point was with the gross. We can't know all the other numbers. And I don't care except that I hope it leads to a sequel. That's all.



I happen to think that "Superman Returns" also successfully re-introduced Superman. It may not have been Spider-Man numbers but it made more than Batman did. If that can get a sequel then I don't see why Superman can't also get one.



I don't know much about the reaction to "Batman Begins" because I've only visited Bluetights Batman section a few times and it's rather small. Nor have I read everything. I liked the film though I've only seen all of it once and from when he returns to Gotham section on the DVD (and the rest i.e. I skipped the start). I did this because I'd spent the night viewing the extras and was tired. I might see it again this year I hope.

As for overcoming perceptions I think Superman also had to. It may not of had a bomb in recent memory. Though I remember it as a kid and it being disappointing for me. Which has stayed with me (those feelings). But I'm not the average viewer. However there was something else to overcome and that was the Christopher Reeve legacy. In the publics mind he is Superman on the big screen. He was for me. I've loved many versions and accepted them. But even I was unsure if I could accept someone other than Reeve as Superman on film. Thankfully I could. I think for some this would be an obstacle. I also remember hearing about Nick Cage. Luckily I didn't find out about the other shenanigans until after I saw the film last year. Though I still don't know everything nor do I want to.

If you want to know what convinced me to see the film it was the clips, trailers and TV spots. These things usually convince me not to see films. It's very rare for it to be the other way round. I had to overcome quite a few obstacles to go see it (as mentioned above). They were mainly the past. I doubt I would be the only one affected by this. As for "Smallville" that too can be a negative because some of the hardcore fans might not like the film because they view it as a betrayal of the TV Series to do so. They're often young and may not get that it isn't a betrayal to like more than one version of something. I'm not saying everyone - just some. And I guess it's not just the TV fans either.

But really my main point was it made as much and a little bit more from the worldwide figures as Batman did. If one is considered a success then I don't think it means the other is a failure.

Interesting to see an opposite POV. Thanks.

Interesting thoughts. On Jason he might be a disaster in a sequel and equally he might not be. I'm prepared to wait and see. The irony is I thought he might have been a disaster for "Superman Returns" when I saw the clips. I didn't go on forums nor read spoilers until after I saw the film. It was what made me go to the forums (seeing the film the first time). And eventually I joined three of them months later when I felt compelled to comment. I never felt that way for any film ever. I have for television and for a little while a book series (read but never joined) that happened to have films too. But with Jason I guessed what he might mean because I've seen all of the Christopher Reeve films and have loved them since childhood. I feared I'd hate it - I didn't - I loved him and what he meant.

WHat does Jason mean to you then in SR?

To me he represents Superman's irresponsibility and inability to be honest with Lois. And he also represents that the act of sex between Lois and Superman is what the story is really about, not the actual LOVE between them. Superman and his mistakes, as represented by Jason end up being the focus instead of the actual Love or loss of love. Jason, being a child, has to be the priority and has to be the focus of the sequel, otherwise why introduce him at all. It seems to me Singer is focussing on SUperman's mistakes and how he screws up his own life and his loved one's lives instead of the positive influence he has on the world. For me it's just not Superman

That's why I'm prepared to wait and see because I realise it could be beautiful. It also could be horribly tragic (in a good or bad way). As I said I'm going to wait and see with no prejudgement. Though I hope for the best.

To me the storyline is so far from what a Superman story should be about I don't even care. Singer couldn't make me care about anyone in the film except Richard, and that's not enough to interest me in where Singer is going with a sequel. As long as it's going to be about dysfunctional dad and superkid, it's just not about the essence of Superman.

As for Batman the irony is I'm not worried whether I see a sequel or not. I don't mind if I do. I also hope I may like it. But I'm not fussed either way. But Superman I really do want to see it (a sequel). I hope I'll love it. As well as maybe the wankers at IMAX might actually show it in my country and especially my state even if it's not exactly near. The irony is I think because of "Superman Returns" and the previous Harry Potter (that was perfect for IMAX but also wasn't shown here) they are showing "Spider-Man 3". As well as the next Harry Potter when it's out later this year. If I like it (Harry Potter in a regular cinema) I hope I'll see it there (which will make it a first for me). I really am pissed about not being able to see the other two films though. Oh well. My main point is just because some are interested or not interested in a film doesn't hold true for everyone. I loved "Superman Returns" and I've loved Superman most of my life. But the former is why I'm here. It may be looked down upon by some but it isn't true of everyone. Nor can it be said for the fans nor general public nor even the critics. It's just people seeing what they want to through blinders. They can't accept a different version for whatever reason (the "fans" that is). As for the general audience as well as the critics the same principle applies as to whether they could like that version or not. If Rotten Tomatoes can be believed then most did it seems. I say - I could and did - which I consider it a blessing. But I'm an individual. I really do hope for a sequel and time will tell if there is one.

Angeloz

I am comic fan first and my interest in comic book movies is born specifically out of that. If it's a character I've liked or graphic novel I've read, I'm going to be interested in a film version. One of the most important factors in translating comics to film is getting the essence right and hopefully using some actual comic storylines in the movies. I think that is one of the biggest reasons why the Spider-Man franchise has done so well.

Other versions with details altered and different specific storylines are going to happen and you've got to keep the essence. To me BB did a great job of that. SR, IMO, failed miserably to the point that the essence is not there at all. If anything it was more like the essence of a Spider-Man film than a Superman film.

I'm interested in another Superman film, just not one that continues the current storyline. BB was great and I eagerly anticipate that sequel.

Even though Fantastic Four was just mediocre, it maintained the essence of the characters and the essence of the family dynamic. I am very excited about the sequel and I think they've picked a fantastic, no pun intended, storyline to adapt. I think it has the potential to be awesome. I am willing to see it. For what SR sets up for sequel material just doesn't come across as Superman material.

 

[Agentsands77]

WHat does Jason mean to you then in SR?

To me, he represents the fulfillment of Superman's wish for "another" like him, the completion of the father/son arc, and the fulfillment of a deep and unbreakable bond between he and Lois.

It seems to me Singer is focussing on SUperman's mistakes and how he screws up his own life and his loved one's lives instead of the positive influence he has on the world. For me it's just not Superman.

SUPERMAN RETURNS goes to great lengths to establish Superman as the saviour of the world, so I don't think it's looking at him as a negative influence. And sure, Superman's made a few mistakes in SUPERMAN RETURNS, but they're hardly unforgiveable and incomprehensible.

 

[Angeloz]

Interesting to see an opposite POV. Thanks.

I like our discussions too.

WHat does Jason mean to you then in SR?

To me he represents Superman's irresponsibility and inability to be honest with Lois. And he also represents that the act of sex between Lois and Superman is what the story is really about, not the actual LOVE between them. Superman and his mistakes, as represented by Jason end up being the focus instead of the actual Love or loss of love. Jason, being a child, has to be the priority and has to be the focus of the sequel, otherwise why introduce him at all. It seems to me Singer is focussing on SUperman's mistakes and how he screws up his own life and his loved one's lives instead of the positive influence he has on the world. For me it's just not Superman

Interesting and I mean it. Jason represents to me him finding what he was searching for - someone like him and that he wasn't alone. From the way he looked at him at the end as well as the speech he gave he loves that little boy. Just for his existence. We don't know what happened in the past. It could be similar to "Superman II". But I don't mind that he makes a mistake giving in to his curiosity and goes to Krypton. He's even done it in the comics (I believe) and the animated series. It was his right to make it and it's perfectly understandable. He obviously pays for it. From what he finds as well as the situation when he comes back. I'll admit I care more for him than the world and am glad they focused on him. Also I liked the worldwide television coverage we got to see of his rescues. Which I'd prefer in news reports rather than the bad stuff we get. I liked that we got to see his heart. 'Cos meaningless action just doesn't cut it for me (I presume you wouldn't just want that too). I want more than that.

To me the storyline is so far from what a Superman story should be about I don't even care. Singer couldn't make me care about anyone in the film except Richard, and that's not enough to interest me in where Singer is going with a sequel. As long as it's going to be about dysfunctional dad and superkid, it's just not about the essence of Superman.

What about Lois dies and it's Richard/Clark? Or better Lois/Richard/Clark then men and women can enjoy something. OK I know it'll never happen but that's what fan fiction is for. Though I prefer Superman/Batman. If you can't tell I was being somewhat silly because I'm sick of the it wasn't Superman claim. It was and is. Just not to your taste. Which is fine (or not if it makes you unhappy). It was for me and others like me.

I am comic fan first and my interest in comic book movies is born specifically out of that. If it's a character I've liked or graphic novel I've read, I'm going to be interested in a film version. One of the most important factors in translating comics to film is getting the essence right and hopefully using some actual comic storylines in the movies. I think that is one of the biggest reasons why the Spider-Man franchise has done so well.

Other versions with details altered and different specific storylines are going to happen and you've got to keep the essence. To me BB did a great job of that. SR, IMO, failed miserably to the point that the essence is not there at all. If anything it was more like the essence of a Spider-Man film than a Superman film.

I'm interested in another Superman film, just not one that continues the current storyline. BB was great and I eagerly anticipate that sequel.

Even though Fantastic Four was just mediocre, it maintained the essence of the characters and the essence of the family dynamic. I am very excited about the sequel and I think they've picked a fantastic, no pun intended, storyline to adapt. I think it has the potential to be awesome. I am willing to see it. For what SR sets up for sequel material just doesn't come across as Superman material.

Ironically I agree with the "Fantastic Four 2" comment that I too am looking forward to it and hope it'll be good as well as enjoyable. I saw a trailer for it in "Spider-Man 3" and liked it. As for the other films mentioned above I liked all of them (including "Fantastic Four"). But only saw them once in the cinema. 'Cos that was satisfying for me. "Superman Returns" I saw six times and wanted it to be more (it left). As I've said before - some people can't like some versions of Superman because of preconcieved prejudice (i.e. they like one actor) or ideals for the character. And can't get past them. So it prevents them liking this version. Actually that's what people that aren't fans face too. Not preconceived ideas but the question of if they can like this version or not. You couldn't - I'm sorry. I can and did - which I'm glad. I want to see more because of the way it was as well as seeing more Brandon Routh. I don't know if I'll like it, or love it, as much if not more. We'll see (hopefully). I hope you can like it too (the sequel) but will understand if you can't.

Angeloz

 

[buggs0268]

you gotta love this welcoming committee. i really don't know why i even bother to care about your odd claims, but i have never visited this site till approximately 2 weeks ago. my name is zac tidwell and live in tuscaloosa, alabama. i am 30 yrs and not childish as stated above. i have never been persecuted this way on any message board that i have held membership. if you still think that i am some reckless previous member, send me a private message and i will gladly give you my email address for further clarification. now please focus your attention on discussion instead of accusation.

Dude, you show up the same day that Saph's last screen name was banned. The same day with your first post. Something that Saph has done. You posted almost verbatim in your entrance post the same thing that Saph posted in his entrance post back in 2004. And Saph has always denied being Saph when I have pointed out that he was Saph. Every time Saph denies being Saph, and I took it to Excellsior, he would confirm after banning him that this very same new guy who just did the exact same thing that you did, denied knowing Saph like you did, and posted like Saph like you did, was Saph. Trust me I have weeded him out 12X now. Even when I had a funny feeling it was Saph by the way the guy was replying, I let Excelsior know about it. And every time it has been confirmed by the site's main administrator Excelsior to have been Saph. If it walks like a Saph, and talks like a Saph, it is a Saph.

 

[AgentPat]

^ Hey Buggs, was Saph a SV fan? If he wasn't, than AA isn't likely Saph. Hope that helps.

 

[buggs0268]

^ Hey Buggs, was Saph a SV fan? If he wasn't, than AA isn't likely Saph. Hope that helps.

As I recall, he came in and literally said the same thing. If it wasn't him, it was one of his screen names that was confirmed to be him and banned. But I know it was Saph saying it.

 

[Angeloz]

I'll note he's appeared in Bluetights too whomever he is.

Angeloz

 

[buggs0268]

Anther thing I was thinking. Superman has all the time in the world to use his X-ray vision to spy on Lois, but, when he goes to the Fortress and finds his crystals gone, what does he do? Does he go looking for Luthor? Well no, because everyone knows where he is. That inheritence would have made the papers. If O.J. can get kicked out of a restaurant and it makes the major news for a few days, Luthor inheriting billions would be all over the media. Especially when the pissed off family goes to it.

So he already knows where Luthor is. Does he go to investigate if he stole is crystals? No. He is too involved in if Lois forgiving him. Does he even go looking when a metorite from Addis Ababa is stolen, which Lois makes a big deal of. Doesn't even get to Luthor till Lois faxes in some co-ordinates in the ocean. So he is too involved in stalking Lois and trying to woo her back then getting his technology, which even he should know would shift the balance of power to whomever had it, until a big rock starts growing out of the ocean. Lame-o.

 

[Angeloz]

I do want to point out according to Perry Lex was yesterdays news so probably news of his inheritance didn't make the news at all it seems. So slight problem there.

Angeloz

 

[dude stannis]

Originally Posted by alabamaassassin
you gotta love this welcoming committee. i really don't know why i even bother to care about your odd claims, but i have never visited this site till approximately 2 weeks ago. my name is zac tidwell and live in tuscaloosa, alabama. i am 30 yrs and not childish as stated above. i have never been persecuted this way on any message board that i have held membership. if you still think that i am some reckless previous member, send me a private message and i will gladly give you my email address for further clarification. now please focus your attention on discussion instead of accusation.

Just leave him be and he'll leave you be. If he doesn't, just tell a mod. But play nice with anyone you disagree with and they'll play nice with you (Not saying you aren't). t:

I do want to point out according to Perry Lex was yesterdays news so probably news of his inheritance didn't make the news at all it seems. So slight problem there.

Also remember that SR is set in the same world where it's hinted that Batman and Aquaman most likely exist. Michael Jackson could probably rape a preschool full of kids in full view of childrens parents and the world would be more interested in the giant bat that drove a souped up black tank and attacked the GCPD or Aquaman's exploits.

Luthor is but an E! headline.

 

[Angeloz]

On a slow day dude love (Lex headline issue) and perhaps it wasn't a slow day. Also I wonder if they have S! headlines instead. S for Superhero.

Angeloz

 

[Steelsheen]

I do want to point out according to Perry Lex was yesterdays news so probably news of his inheritance didn't make the news at all it seems. So slight problem there.

Angeloz

i believe Perry meant it more as Lex is no longer a headliner. a person marrying an old geezer for money then getting it all isnt unusual.