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

[Matt]

In regards to the Kryptonite argument, it really all comes down to who is writing him. In some stories Kryptonite will instantly incapacitate big blue, in others it will take longer to have a full effect.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'm probably the least traditional or obsessed superman fan ever ... so I had no issues with Supes being able to lift the Kryptonian continent. I was probably to distracted by the fact that he can lift a continent, and I cant.

I'm never really obsessed with the minutia of any particular mythology. As long as the overall themes are human and true, I'll be there. Superman Returns did this for me. In a time when family and heroism don't have the same, simplistic definitions, Supes needed to be made relevant. We are dealing with tough issues, and now, so is he. He is still a beacon of hope and higher moral standing.

In my opinion, Superman is one of the most important modern mythological heroes, and Superman Returns portrayed him perfectly, and for the ages. I may not be able to lift a continent or catch a plane (YET) but I can make a choice to always be "around" for those in my life.

Damn, I want to watch this again now!

Totally agreed NickT, I feel that the movie got the character down pretty damn good and did a good job of re-introducing him to the masses. They also did a good job of making what is practically a god relatable to the likes of us, it was easy to get into this Superman as a character I found. He made some human mistakes, and apologised for them and got on with what he does best for most of the movie, save people.

I have never understood the criticism of Superman not being there for 5 years, because, if I had never met my birth parents, and there was a chance that they or some of my race were still alive, I would not hesitate in leaving.

I'll post what I posted at the Planet.

I actually watched Superman Returns again recently, and while I didn't like it anymore than before, the experience did crystallize why I didn't like it. In the end, for me anyway, it wasn't a movie all about Superman.

I think when someone is starting, reintroducing, or rebooting a franchise about a character, you need to make that character the main focus of the film. In movies like Iron Man, Spider-Man, and especially Batman Begins, the main character is the star of the film, and thoroughly follows his story in the movie. In Batman Begins, the story is completely focused on Batman, and characters like Lucious Fox, Alfred and Sergeant Gordon were all there, but the story was never really focused on them.

While watching Superman Returns, I realized that roughly half the movie focused on Lois Lane, and that Brandon almost felt like a supporting cast member. Sure we had some focus on Lex too, but between that and Lois, we had very little time for Superman himself. As a movie that was supposed to launch a new franchise, Singer should have completely focused on Brandon Routh, with some minor support from the other cast members. Let the audience grow into this new Superman. The key to identifying with the hero doesn't mean he has to be completely relatable like Spider-Man, but you do need to feel like you've gone on the same journey he has. That's why Superman: The Movie was so effective. Like many have pointed out, there wasn't much more action in Superman: The Movie than there was with Superman Returns, but in Superman: The Movie, you went on the journey almost completely with Superman. But since Superman Returns decided to focus on a badly cast Lois, I never got the chance to connect with the new guy playing Superman. Ensemble films should be saved for the sequels, like Nolan did so effectively with The Dark Knight, where Batman's screen time is about equal to everyone else.

That frankly, is why I think Superman Returns is a failure, and why I have no desire to see a second one, because I get the feeling its going to focus even less on Superman than SR did, and because Singer thinks he already "established" the characters the first time. Well Bryan, you forgot to focus on the one that really mattered.

I can sort of understand this criticism LH, there should have been a bit more Superman in this movie than there was, it didnt effect my ability to relate to the character like it to yourself, but I know what you mean, we should have seen more of him and less of Lois.

In regards to the Kryptonite argument, it really all comes down to who is writing him. In some stories Kryptonite will instantly incapacitate big blue, in others it will take longer to have a full effect.

Exactlym which is why, IMO, criticisms about the effects of K at the end of SR are unfounded.

 

[Wushuboy]

In regards to the Kryptonite argument, it really all comes down to who is writing him. In some stories Kryptonite will instantly incapacitate big blue, in others it will take longer to have a full effect.

Yes I am aware of this fact. However, these writers are consistent within their own story about how kryptonite affects superman. Within superman returns, the writers are inconsistent with how they've established how kryptonite affects him, especially since it's a sequel which means they should have abided by the laws of the universe established in superman 1. However, i'll give them the benefit of the doubt and let them establish their own rules for SR. If it only takes a couple minutes for kryptonite to affect an almost fully powered superman it should always take a couple minutes which it does not. If absorption of sunlight counters the affects of kryptonite, it should always do so, which it does not in SR since he's in pure sunlight in space. This is also why I wanted to know whether or not he controls or auto absorbs sunlight. Like I said, the writers of SR were probably far less concerned about the logic behind their scene, instead just going for something that looked cool. I know some people will defend SR to death in any aspect but really, I'd like to see some quotes from the writers or some book about the movie to support their defense rather than citing other writers' works. You can cite all you want from other writers but I want to know what the writers of SR thought.

 

[the_joker]

Eighty-six pages later, three years on, and the war still rages on. Time to let it go methinks.

 

[X Knight]

Eighty-six pages later, three years on, and the war still rages on. Time to let it go methinks.

To quote Alfred from Batman Begins: "NEVAH!!"

 

[p4poetic]

It was a continuation of a 20 year old film, when it should of been a fresh new movie to look forward to. I don't want to be stuck in 1978 when it comes to Superman. Worse, they deprived the newest Superman actor to have the opportunity to make Superman his own; he was only force him to imitate someone else's Superman.

The CGI was too much. CGI Superman? Why are the special effects in 1978 more practical and realistic than a 2006 movie? CGI is okay for Spider-Man in certain scenes to be made, he wears a mask. Superman on the other hand, will look like an action figure, which he did many of the time.

Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane was a bore.

The whole movie's pace was very slow for me. I kept thinking 'okay, where are they going with this?'

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?

No, its not a starting a franchise, its literally going backward. Imagine if Batman fans had to wait 8 years since Batman and Robin for Christopher Nolan to only just only remake Tim Burton's Batman/continue where Batman Returns left off/get a Michael Keaton lookalike, etc.

I agree with this interpretation, but it bugged me. It bugged me a LOT! Superman isn't like Spider-Man or Batman. He doesn't turn those instincts on and off because he doesn't want to be Superman. Superman is who he IS - not just what he can do. (Oh, how I hated that line from L&C.)

L&C takes place in a different era of Superman.

 

[p4poetic]

no, I'm not the only one here who thinks Ross's work is terrible. If you ask around you'd be able to find that out very easily.

The spidey suit got the colors right, and still had that updated feel to it, whether you want to agree or not.

As Far as Superman II goes, the theatrical cut was pretty bad, but The Donner Cut was even worse because it was an unfinished project. I'd rather see a combination of the two instead of an unfinished project.

you're absolutely right... those specific colors are pretty bad... a little too bright.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but have you seen Superboy?

 

[afan]

I have never understood the criticism of Superman not being there for 5 years, because, if I had never met my birth parents, and there was a chance that they or some of my race were still alive, I would not hesitate in leaving.

Perhaps because it's not the 5 year absence, it's Superman leaving, out the back door for five years, unannounced that deserves criticism.

 

[X Knight]

i regards to the leave of absence, the leaving part was not the real problem, it was the WAY Superman left.

There's nothing wrong with leaving to rediscover your heritage or find your birth parents, especially if you think you are the last of your kind.

HOWEVER, if you knew you were going to be gone for 5+ years with no way to be contacted, and if you had any sense of decency/respect, you'd tell your significant other/girlfriend of your plans, especially if you are already in a ( sexual ) relationship. At the very least, you'd say GOODBYE to her.

Yes, leaving to seek out your birth parents/race would be important to you, but would you do so at the expense of hurting your loved ones and making them worry?

I mean....look at what happens when someone goes missing in the news. Look how much pain and suffering it causes friends and family. Look how much stress and burden it places on society to try to find that person. Would you want to bring all that upon your loved ones ( and society ) because you VOLUNTARILY left but failed to notify anyone?

Also, if you were going to leave for 5+ years, you'd have to consider your present jobs/duties/responsibilities. If you were going to take any type of extended leave of absence for PERSONAL reasons ( not work-related ), you'd have to notify your boss/company/clients, etc. Failure to do so would be seriously irresponsible; you'd be ABANDONING your jobs and responsibilities.

Superman, in particular, has a very unique duty or responsibility in protecting/defending the entire world, not just rescuing people day-to-day, but also protecting the world from larger threats like Zod, Brainiac, etc. In the comics, Superman could have notified other Justice League members and asked them to fill in. In the movies, he could have at least notified the President.

I mean....if you had such a unique role in protecting the world, and then you suddenly left and disappeared for a really long time, you're in essence abandoning the entire world and leaving them defenseless. What if there was a disaster you could have helped prevent? What if some external threat ( like Zod, Darkseid, etc. ) attacked while you were away?

So, again, it's not the fact that Superman left; it was the WAY he left, which made him selfish, irresponsible, and insensitive. By leaving suddenly and without notifying anyone ( except his mom ), Superman hurt his loved ones ( namely Lois ), he abandoned his duties here on earth, and he put his own selfish interests and desires ( even if they are noble ones ) above everything else.

If anyone of us did that in the real world, we'd hurt our loved ones ( and would thus be shunned/rejected by them ); we'd be promptly fired from our jobs and labeled unreliable and irresponsible. In short, we'd be labeled as selfish, irresponsible jerks......not very Supermanly, imo.

 

[Super Kal]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but have you seen Superboy?

yes, I have seen Superboy... I have Season 1 on DVD... and even though I love the Superboy series, I still think it's still too bright

 

[Wushuboy]

i regards to the leave of absence, the leaving part was not the real problem, it was the WAY Superman left.

There's nothing wrong with leaving to rediscover your heritage or find your birth parents, especially if you think you are the last of your kind.

HOWEVER, if you knew you were going to be gone for 5+ years with no way to be contacted, and if you had any sense of decency/respect, you'd tell your significant other/girlfriend of your plans, especially if you are already in a ( sexual ) relationship. At the very least, you'd say GOODBYE to her.

Yes, leaving to seek out your birth parents/race would be important to you, but would you do so at the expense of hurting your loved ones and making them worry?

I mean....look at what happens when someone goes missing in the news. Look how much pain and suffering it causes friends and family. Look how much stress and burden it places on society to try to find that person. Would you want to bring all that upon your loved ones ( and society ) because you VOLUNTARILY left but failed to notify anyone?

Also, if you were going to leave for 5+ years, you'd have to consider your present jobs/duties/responsibilities. If you were going to take any type of extended leave of absence for PERSONAL reasons ( not work-related ), you'd have to notify your boss/company/clients, etc. Failure to do so would be seriously irresponsible; you'd be ABANDONING your jobs and responsibilities.

Superman, in particular, has a very unique duty or responsibility in protecting/defending the entire world, not just rescuing people day-to-day, but also protecting the world from larger threats like Zod, Brainiac, etc. In the comics, Superman could have notified other Justice League members and asked them to fill in. In the movies, he could have at least notified the President.

I mean....if you had such a unique role in protecting the world, and then you suddenly left and disappeared for a really long time, you're in essence abandoning the entire world and leaving them defenseless. What if there was a disaster you could have helped prevent? What if some external threat ( like Zod, Darkseid, etc. ) attacked while you were away?

So, again, it's not the fact that Superman left; it was the WAY he left, which made him selfish, irresponsible, and insensitive. By leaving suddenly and without notifying anyone ( except his mom ), Superman hurt his loved ones ( namely Lois ), he abandoned his duties here on earth, and he put his own selfish interests and desires ( even if they are noble ones ) above everything else.

If anyone of us did that in the real world, we'd hurt our loved ones ( and would thus be shunned/rejected by them ); we'd be promptly fired from our jobs and labeled unreliable and irresponsible. In short, we'd be labeled as selfish, irresponsible jerks......not very Supermanly, imo.

Not only that but you'd think Lois and everyone else that has worked with clark would be able to figure out that clark and superman are the same person because I mean cmon... both have been gone for the same amount of time and both return to metropolis at the same friggin time. Lois must really be an idiot.

 

[X Knight]

well...don't forget....Lois slept with Supes and STILL couldn't figure out that he's Clark without glasses.......lol.

 

[chamber-music]

Superman came across as a creepy stalker, Jason murdered a henchman, they kept going on about Superman being Jesus, ect

 

[Wushuboy]

Dont forget Lois putting her child's life in danger by putting her story ahead of her motherly duties. Mom of the year. I could just imagine what went thru her head.. " yeah.. lets go see what's in that big yacht so i can follow this story about something that caused major blackouts as well as the space shuttle to go haywire... totally safe.. no potential danger to my kid."

 

[p4poetic]

I just watched the Superman Returns trailer again. Damn them, they made it look so good.

Not only that but you'd think Lois and everyone else that has worked with clark would be able to figure out that clark and superman are the same person because I mean cmon... both have been gone for the same amount of time and both return to metropolis at the same friggin time. Lois must really be an idiot.

Galactically stupid! But than so are Jimmy and Perry too.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Well it ain't just that, his disguise of a pair of glasses and a slightly different hair style isn't exactly good is it?

 

[p4poetic]

Well it ain't just that, his disguise of a pair of glasses and a slightly different hair style isn't exactly good is it?

I thought G. Reeves' was the most glaringly obvious of them all.

Second place, I would probably say D. Cain's.



But at least he had a different hair style It varies. I for one liked the longer hair in pilot ("mullet" if you will). Then they changed it not too long afterward and used more gel.

Ma Kent must have changed her mind with the small \S/ she had original gave him before and made a HUGE one afterward.

 

[Wushuboy]

Well it ain't just that, his disguise of a pair of glasses and a slightly different hair style isn't exactly good is it?

Well, I'm willing to look over that since it's tradition but Lois putting her own child in a dangerous situation is just bad characterization. Lois might be the hard nosed reporter but I highly doubt she would ever put her news story over her child's safety. I guess no one in this story is responsible except for Richard who's the real superman of the story. Give him superpowers and he'd most definately be a better superman since this superman is nothing without his.

 

[El Payaso]

Perhaps because it's not the 5 year absence, it's Superman leaving, out the back door for five years, unannounced that deserves criticism.

Which he did in Superman II, a movie from which SR is a sequel.

And in SII he didn't leave for 5 years, he simply quit forever. And told no one about it.

i regards to the leave of absence, the leaving part was not the real problem, it was the WAY Superman left.

There's nothing wrong with leaving to rediscover your heritage or find your birth parents, especially if you think you are the last of your kind.

HOWEVER, if you knew you were going to be gone for 5+ years with no way to be contacted, and if you had any sense of decency/respect, you'd tell your significant other/girlfriend of your plans, especially if you are already in a ( sexual ) relationship. At the very least, you'd say GOODBYE to her.

Yes, leaving to seek out your birth parents/race would be important to you, but would you do so at the expense of hurting your loved ones and making them worry?

I mean....look at what happens when someone goes missing in the news. Look how much pain and suffering it causes friends and family. Look how much stress and burden it places on society to try to find that person. Would you want to bring all that upon your loved ones ( and society ) because you VOLUNTARILY left but failed to notify anyone?

Also, if you were going to leave for 5+ years, you'd have to consider your present jobs/duties/responsibilities. If you were going to take any type of extended leave of absence for PERSONAL reasons ( not work-related ), you'd have to notify your boss/company/clients, etc. Failure to do so would be seriously irresponsible; you'd be ABANDONING your jobs and responsibilities.

Superman, in particular, has a very unique duty or responsibility in protecting/defending the entire world, not just rescuing people day-to-day, but also protecting the world from larger threats like Zod, Brainiac, etc. In the comics, Superman could have notified other Justice League members and asked them to fill in. In the movies, he could have at least notified the President.

I mean....if you had such a unique role in protecting the world, and then you suddenly left and disappeared for a really long time, you're in essence abandoning the entire world and leaving them defenseless. What if there was a disaster you could have helped prevent? What if some external threat ( like Zod, Darkseid, etc. ) attacked while you were away?

So, again, it's not the fact that Superman left; it was the WAY he left, which made him selfish, irresponsible, and insensitive. By leaving suddenly and without notifying anyone ( except his mom ), Superman hurt his loved ones ( namely Lois ), he abandoned his duties here on earth, and he put his own selfish interests and desires ( even if they are noble ones ) above everything else.

If anyone of us did that in the real world, we'd hurt our loved ones ( and would thus be shunned/rejected by them ); we'd be promptly fired from our jobs and labeled unreliable and irresponsible. In short, we'd be labeled as selfish, irresponsible jerks......not very Supermanly, imo.

Again, the same that happened in SII. Superman quits forever and tells nobody.

And in both SII and SR he did when Earth seemed safe.

Now it is weel explained that if Superman had talked to Lois before leaving he wouldn't have left. That's why he didn't do it. His mission and responsibility to any possible Kryptonian survivor was higher than Lois' (or anybody else's) pain.

Nevertheless Supes told his motehr about it.

Not only that but you'd think Lois and everyone else that has worked with clark would be able to figure out that clark and superman are the same person because I mean cmon... both have been gone for the same amount of time and both return to metropolis at the same friggin time. Lois must really be an idiot.

Oh, like in every comic book for decades she hgasn't been able to see that Clark + glasses = Superman.

Suddenly, the same kind of traditional cluelessness is a problem. But it is well established that for Lois, Clark is almost unexistant. Many people in Metropolis went away one day and came 5 years later. Lois - as usual - never made the connection.

Superman came across as a creepy stalker, Jason murdered a henchman, they kept going on about Superman being Jesus, ect

He was not creepy at all, and if you check the "stalker" definition, Superman in SR doesn't fit.

stalk (FOLLOW) Show phonetics
verb
1 [T] to follow an animal or person as closely as possible without being seen or heard, usually in order to catch or kill them:
The police had been stalking the woman for a week before they arrested her.

Not the case; it wasn't in order to catch or kill Lois.

2 [I or T] to illegally follow and watch someone, usually a woman, over a period of time:
He was arrested for stalking.

Not the case; it wasn't over a period of time, just once.

3 [T] LITERARY If something unpleasant stalks a place, it appears there in a threatening way:
When night falls, danger stalks the streets of the city.

Not the case; he wasn't threatening Lois or anyone inside of Richard's house.


stalker Show phonetics
noun [C]
a person who illegally follows and watches someone, especially a woman, over a period of time:
Several well-known women have been troubled by stalkers recently.

Not the case; it wasn't over a period of time, just once.


What Jason did was to save his motehr's life. Ethicaly you can kill someone if he's threatening your or some innocent person's life.

And about the Jesus parallel, yes, Singer kept what has been a thing associated to Superman since 1939.

Dont forget Lois putting her child's life in danger by putting her story ahead of her motherly duties. Mom of the year. I could just imagine what went thru her head.. " yeah.. lets go see what's in that big yacht so i can follow this story about something that caused major blackouts as well as the space shuttle to go haywire... totally safe.. no potential danger to my kid."

Terrible mum. Typical Lois behaviour.

Well, I'm willing to look over that since it's tradition

Excuse me? That's the excuse?

If she wasn't making connections between Superman and someone who she couldn't care less (namely Clark) for, then it's plothole. But if she has been idiot enough to not to notice a simple pair of glasses then it's okay because it has been like that for too long?

Have you ever thought that Clark has traditionally been absent every time when Superman is there to be seen (sometimes for a long time when Superman has been in outer space) and yet Lois never made the connection? My man; that is "tradition" too.

but Lois putting her own child in a dangerous situation is just bad characterization. Lois might be the hard nosed reporter but I highly doubt she would ever put her news story over her child's safety.

So how many comics/movies have you seen with Lois being a mother so we can draw conclusions about her possible behaviour as a mum?

As far as we know, Lois puts always the news before everything and usually in an impulsive and irresponsible way. As far as she knows, it is an old lady who inhabits that house.

I guess no one in this story is responsible except for Richard who's the real superman of the story. Give him superpowers and he'd most definately be a better superman since this superman is nothing without his.

Superman in SR, as he did in SII and many heroes has done in many good stories, lost his way.

And Richard is precisely who shows him what he used to be; a hero beyond the super-powers. That's the function of Richard, who Superman thought at first would be the classic pedantic son of daddy.

 

[mego joe]

OK, so at the bargain basement price of $4.75 I bought "Superman Returns" yesterday. I thought that I would watch it and try to appreaciate it as a generic film instead of a Superman movie. So , what did I think upon finally viewing it for a second time after 2 1/2 years?

Y'know, it's really long. And almost nothing happens. I couldn't believe that the Luthor sub-plot moved even slower than I remembered. I still fee that visually it is great- the cinematography and production design are great. Really great. The story, since I knew exactly what to expect was more digestable. Some of the CGI shots are absolutely horrible though- they look like a video game. Oh, well.

Knowing what to expect, makes the story more digestable. And the story as is is well done. However, I still don't buy that Superman leaves Lois in the lurch w/o a goodbye b/c it is 'too difficult.'

It's nice knowing that this story will not be continued, b/c I still have zero interest in what comes next with Super-illegitimate-child.

Routh and Bosworth look so young too. Wow. I totally didn't buy that they were adults. 19 maybe. Especially Bosworth. And I still don't buy Routh as Superman. But overall it was much more wathcable than the first viewing. I'm raising my rating to a 3.5.

I understand why people like it. I understand why people find it intriguing. I just still don't find the characterization to be correct nor do I have any interest in what comes next. I still think it would work better as a Superman story if Superman died at the end.

 

[Double Down]

OK, so at the bargain basement price of $4.75 I bought "Superman Returns" yesterday. I thought that I would watch it and try to appreaciate it as a generic film instead of a Superman movie. So , what did I think upon finally viewing it for a second time after 2 1/2 years?

Y'know, it's really long. And almost nothing happens. I couldn't believe that the Luthor sub-plot moved even slower than I remembered. I still fee that visually it is great- the cinematography and production design are great. Really great. The story, since I knew exactly what to expect was more digestable. Some of the CGI shots are absolutely horrible though- they look like a video game. Oh, well.

Knowing what to expect, makes the story more digestable. And the story as is is well done. However, I still don't buy that Superman leaves Lois in the lurch w/o a goodbye b/c it is 'too difficult.'

It's nice knowing that this story will not be continued, b/c I still have zero interest in what comes next with Super-illegitimate-child.

Routh and Bosworth look so young too. Wow. I totally didn't buy that they were adults. 19 maybe. Especially Bosworth. And I still don't buy Routh as Superman. But overall it was much more wathcable than the first viewing. I'm raising my rating to a 3.5.

I understand why people like it. I understand why people find it intriguing. I just still don't find the characterization to be correct nor do I have any interest in what comes next. I still think it would work better as a Superman story if Superman died at the end.

Even though I don't agree with you (I really like Superman Returns), I thought this was a really good post.

 

[mego joe]

Even though I don't agree with you (I really like Superman Returns), I thought this was a really good post.

Thanks. Just trying to be honest after having seen the film for the first time in 2 and 1/2 years.

 

[afan]

Which he did in Superman II, a movie from which SR is a sequel.

And in SII he didn't leave for 5 years, he simply quit forever. And told no one about it.

Which makes criticism of the act in SII understandable as it also is in SR.
However.......
There is a difference, in SII, Superman did not deliberate his decision to become "mortal". It was a spur of the moment, passionate, and yes somewhat selfish decision. We cannot know if he, after his decision, intends to let the world know that he is "gone", because he very rapidly recognizes the mistake he made, and returns to "Superman-hood".

In SR he most certainly gave his decision a great deal of thought and planning before he acted. Therefore he had the opportunity to make a formal and informative announcement well before his departure, but intentinally and with premeditation, did not.

I still think it would work better as a Superman story if Superman died at the end.

Exactly, if Superman had died, it would have given culmination to what could have been a tragic trilogy, involving S:TM, SII, and SR, featuring a flawed yet well meaning hero whose nature, actions and decisions cause his downfall.

 

[p4poetic]

$4.75? Dang, and here I thought $9.99 was too much for SR.

 

[chamber-music]

You can buy Superman Returns for £3 in Britain. Its one of those movies that are always on sale.