Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

OK. Everyone release their collective breath. This movie is absolutely unforgivable! Not just disappointing, not just average, but terrible! As expected, the CGI was great--good thing too, because the story was nonexistent. Nonetheless, an iconic screen shot here and there does not a movie make. Here are but a few of the problems:

1. The need for Superman's return is necessitated by the hero's 5 year leave of absence from earth, during which time, he presumably travels to Krypton in order to confirm its destruction. I say "presumably" since we never get to see any of this search, only a rehashed CGI effect of Krypton exploding. If you're going to use a return to Krypton as a plot device--and its an intriguing idea--develop it! Dont' leave it hanging there like an unzipped fly.

2. Lex Luthor is about as threatening as Star Jones in a verbal joust with Barbara Walters. The movie opens with him swindling an old widow out of her fortune. Are you shaking in your boots yet? Isn't this guy supposed to be the smartest guy on the planet? Sigh...I suppose the screenwriters, out of some misguided desire to one-up Hackman's original performance, decided complete emasculation of Superman's nemesis was the only route to go. Kudos on that guys! Oh yeah, and in case you missed the point that this guy has no penis, the movie made sure to show Parker Posey literally dump his "crystals" into the ocean. At least that was less painful than witnessing the relentless zinging of the movie's villain with "you're bald" jokes.

3. Lois Lane and Routh are as flat as pancakes. There is no emotional depth to the characters at all. I guess the writers realized this when they were penning the script because, a la "Family Ties", "The Cosby Show", "Phantom Menace", or "Full House", they decided to hide their faltering story by turning Lois Lane's 5 year old kid into a major character. As expected, this was typical bait and switch. Bring out the kid everytime we need a tear. And, for extra effect, lets make him speech impaired and only utter things like "Mommy, will he get better? I want him to get better."
Get my gun.

4. Luthor's plan to destroy Superman starts off well--steal Kryptonian technology and use it to conquer the world and kill Superman--but leaves something to be desired in the execution. Luthor uses a crystal from the Fortress of Solitude to create a new continent--one based on the crystaline geology of Krypton. OK, so far. What now? Build some kick-ass Kryptonian weapons? Revive some long-dormant Kryptonian A.I. that runs amok? Build a suit of Kryptonian battle armor to give Supes a run for his money? None of the above. If you said, kick back, smoke a cigar and play a couple of hands of No-Limit Texas Hold-Em, you'd be more on the right track. Yawn...

5. What else? Oh yeah. Lois has a live-in boyfriend played by X-Men's James Marsden. If only they had let Marsden unleash a well-placed optic blast to eleviate the mind-numbing boredom of watching him squirm from one insecurity complex to the next. I guess I can't blame the guy. If I knew my girlfriend's ex was the last son of Krypton, I'd probably be a little uneasy too. However, all sympathy for the character quickly evaporates as he is remorselessly turned into a Women's Sensitivity Seminar Poster Boy.

6. In the end, I didn't know what to be irritated by the most--the film's inability to engage me in any way by the story, or its heavy-handed attempts to endorse some limp-d--k vision of the sensitive, modern man.

There has been some recent attention surrounding the question, "Is Superman Returns a gay film"? I don't think "gay" quite hits the mark on this one. Rather, terms like "limp", "flacid",and "impotent" come to mind.

Well, I think you're an IDIOT! And should have no business in any forum..........................................ANYWHERE!

Go watch The Village, Open Water, HellRaiser Deader, and The Life Aquatic(Bill Murray) Those are some "limp" "gay" movies!!!!!

OMG! I almost want to reach out of my computer and smack you in the head for saying something stupid like that!

Originally posted by GODOFALL1
Well, I think you're an IDIOT! And should have no business in any forum..........................................ANYWHERE!

It's just an opinion. You shouldn't be insulting someone over their opinions.

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
It's just an opinion. You shouldn't be insulting someone over their opinions.

Agreed.

This member will get his questions answered in good time. This is a real Superman movie...no mistakes for now.

This isn't an opinion...it's a bunch of pointless rants.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
This isn't an opinion...it's a bunch of pointless rants.

Why, because he isn't singing the praises of the movie??

I could call people listing what they like about the movie pointless. Some moderator you are, that troll above calls Dr Zaius an idiot just because he disliked the movie, and you do nothing??

Rock on Dr Zaius. Freedom of speech. You diss the movie as much as you like.

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
It's just an opinion. You shouldn't be insulting someone over their opinions.

A pity some of the moderators around here don't think that way.

Originally posted by Doc Ock
Why, because he isn't singing the praises of the movie??

I could call people listing what they like about the movie pointless. Some moderator you are, that troll above calls Dr Zaius an idiot just because he disliked the movie, and you do nothing??

Rock on Dr Zaius. Freedom of speech. You diss the movie as much as you like.

Before you even post any stupid remarks about me (OMG the moderator said STUPID!) Don't assume things you don't know. He was fairly warned via pm not to make those comments. No one has told Dr Zaius NOT to make his comments. He is free to make them...however they do sound more like rants rather than comments.

I can issue a warning to you for accusing other members of trolling. But I'm not going to do it because I'll allow people to express themselves. Can you do the same with my responses?


Originally posted by Doc Ock
A pity some of the moderators around here don't think that way.

A pity some members don't know anything and make assumptions out of nowhere. Care to stay on topic from here on? Don't answer...just do it.

Let me clarify my initial remarks. First of all, I'm critiquing the movie (which, objectively speaking, was bad) not Superman. Second, I went into the movie expecting and hoping it to be good. I was disabused of these notions about 25 minutes into the film. I'm a fan of Superman and the Superman mythos. That is why I find it startling that there's such universal praise for this film on these boards. What was there to like? Apart from the impressive visuals? You mean to tell me that people prefer a version of Luthor that portrays him as a two-bit hustler? That's what he is in this film. And again, so we're all clear, everyone was just blown away by the stunning way in which Luthor uses the stolen Kryptonian tech in his master scheme? A scheme that has him sitting around on his new island with his goons playing cards? No one else found this boring in the slightest? Everyone thought that the dopey kid actor they kept dragging along with Lois was a scene stealer and worthy of the screen time? And everyone enjoyed those riveting last 25 minutes or so of the film in which absolutely nothing happened? If the answer to these questions are yes, than I stand corrected.

I challenge everyone that thinks they like this film to think about the vast gulf that lies between the movie's basic concept and aspirations (which are good) and its execution (which is abysmal).

i sort of agree with a lot of the comments, but i dont think it was quite that bad. I just think Kate bosworth was a horrible choice, and routh needed more development.

to godofall your the one with no place on a message board. You didnt even give a counter point you just hes wrong, and also posted 3 times all at once, why not put it in one post? or use the edit button.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
This isn't an opinion...it's a bunch of pointless rants.

They're valid opinions, and I agree with every one of them, personally, given they're the exact same reasons why I disliked the movie.

He could have even outed the sheer ludicrous nature of the plot, which, in and of itself, makes no sense whatsoever. That being Luthor flooding Metropolis and surrounding areas so he can cease control of an uninhabitable piece of land with which he'll do what with?

Zaius, cheers to you. Well explained and articulated points.



You'd warn someone for suggesting a troll is trolling, which he obviously is, having been warned previously, and asked not to post said retorts?

Don't have to explain that, just seems a little bogus.

man you guys read into things too much, whenever did the original superman films seem correct? so many things that were wrong or he did in a way which wouldn't happen because it would melt or bend... my god get a life guys... and fast because I'd shoot people who dribble on about something normal people don't even realise as something that bad until you open your mouth or type it into a forum where you cant get punched in the head... lucky you!

I thought it was a good movie, but Dr. Zaius made some nice points.

What I didn't like is that Lois and Clark had no connection. They should have been portrayed as very good friends. But instead, Clark was nothing more to Lois than a "guy I work with."

It had some nice qualities, the plane sequence was great, Supermans' heat rays look awsome. Flying sequences= amazing!

Superman going back to Krypton should have been explored more.

I agree with many of the points Dr. Zauis made especially the ones having to due with the plot, and Lex Luthor's sceme. I thought there should have been more conflict between the two. One thing i dont agree on is Brandon Routh character being flat. I thought this guy did an awesome job, especially as Superman. As for the CGI probably the best i have seen along with King Kong.

i thought this movie was decent. although, it was a little boring in the end and Zaius did make some good points, i just dont think it made the movie as bad as he had thought. all the special effects and flying sequences made up for all that IMO, which were very entertaining. especially that scene with the gatling gun, and superman just walks right up to him.. and that bullet flattens on his eye..!! just plain aweshom..!

Originally posted by C-Dic
They're valid opinions, and I agree with every one of them, personally, given they're the exact same reasons why I disliked the movie.

He could have even outed the sheer ludicrous nature of the plot, which, in and of itself, makes no sense whatsoever. That being Luthor flooding Metropolis and surrounding areas so he can cease control of an uninhabitable piece of land with which he'll do what with?

Zaius, cheers to you. Well explained and articulated points.



You'd warn someone for suggesting a troll is trolling, which he obviously is, having been warned previously, and asked not to post said retorts?

Don't have to explain that, just seems a little bogus.

Of course you gonna agree with them. You didn't like the movie....period. Like I said he can make all the comments he wants...no one is stopping him from doing it. And I sincerely hope you're not joining Ock on putting my moderatorship skills on trial. Quite frankly the best comment so far came from Mattday:

..by that he meant the intricate details. Not being a fan of the original, I don't even have to read into the mythos of Superman pertaining to this movie to point out its countless flaws and shortcomings. They're all too evident even to casual, non-biased, clear thinking movie goers.

It's just flawed even in principal.

I think the movie was amazing and i completely disagree with Dr. Zauis's comments. Lex Luthor wasn't "dumbed down" in this film but rather he didn't have the central role that villians usually get in movies. The movie wasn't about him or his plans, that was a subplot and because it was a relatively unimportant subplot the details of his dyabolical schemes frankly don't really matter.
I think this was a great choice by Singer and the writers because like the title of the movie Superman returns in this film, that's what it's about. It's not just about the story of superman and the villians he faces, it's about Superman being reintroduced and having to deal with the problems that are associated with his return.
And again i'm going to disagree with Dr. Zaius on the issue of the kid, Jason. I think including the kid in the movie was a great idea and a perfect way to add a twist to the epic superman story. And although the kid was a great touch to the film, that's all he was, a little touch to make the film "complete" (if that's the right word). Singer put the kid in the right amount of scenes and didn't let the kid steal the movie away from the other, more important characters. I think only a few directors could have pulled that off and Singer is one of them.
And as my final rebuttle in Dr. Zaius's original post he spent a lot of time making fun of the character of Richard, Lois's fiance and how he basically has no penis (in Dr. Zaius's view). Well i'd like to completely challenge that notion by saying A) WHat makes Richard not a man? Because he helps Lois out in times of need (aka turning the plane around to save Superman) or because he doesn't walk around with an "i'm all that" attitude. IMO Richard is more of a man than most the people in that film and most people in the world we live in. It was actually really refreshing to see Richard not portrayed as an ******* (as people no-doubt expected) because pretty much every film ever made the main characters love interest is always dating a complete douchebag. It's a long played out character setup and boring. Singer, however took a chance and made Richard a stand up guy. Not only does this make for a more interesting story because it creates a dilemma for Clark/Superman because he can't tell Lois to leave Richard and Lois herself really is stuck and doesn't know what she wants. And it's also makes more sense because no one as smart as Lois Lane (her intelligence could be argued) would be engaged to a complete douche.

Originally posted by C-Dic

You'd warn someone for suggesting a troll is trolling, which he obviously is, having been warned previously, and asked not to post said retorts?

Don't have to explain that, just seems a little bogus.

Thank you

The moderators around here publically slap down trollish behaviour for all to see, so others know it's not allowed.

There's 3 posts in a row in this thread of trollish behaviour, and nothing is said by the moderator who posted in this thread. How was anyone to know he was warned via PM?? It looks like you just looked the other way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you warned him, but don't get defensive if others complain about it, because as I said it looks like nothing was done. And it gives other trolls the green light to behave in the same way.

Dr. Zaius's "pointless rants" are all based on his observations and conclusions from the movie. His formulated opinion is then that the movie was bad. Very logical.

so explain again how it's not an opinion???

Originally posted by GODOFALL1
Well, I think you're an IDIOT! And should have no business in any forum..........................................ANYWHERE!

this coming from a guy who likes that crappy rocky 4 the best over the first classic Rocky movie shows you the bad taste he has and why people should not listen to him. You and this guy should become best friends cinn.

Superman fans are vengeful creatures... (even those that are mods.)

Any Superman fan would think the movie was great. They've been starving for Superman cinematic, so whether the film was great, ok, or bad, they're satisfied, and you'd better not dare give the film negative criticism, or face their wrath. The guy might as well have said "Superman (the character) sucks" judging the responses he received.

Dr. Zaius stated his opinion, and I'm pretty sure that when he made this thread, he knew there would be some opposition, (though I did expect the moderator of this forum to be a bit more impartial,) but I think calling him an idiot is excessive, and such behavior should be corrected by a mod.

In my opinion, the action was great, but the story of Superman Returns was lackluster. X-Men's story sucked too. Maybe Brian Singer makes sucky movies?

I thought it was great movie. Story didn't make sense in alot of ways, but it's a typical comic book movie.

Kevin Spacy as Lex Luthor was gold, however. Best Lex Luthor ever. Even if he was completely different from the comic book version. Which I liked.

Brandon Routh was an amazing Superman..and Clark Kent. I think Christopher Reeves is really alive and in a cloned body. He just renamed himself Brandon Routh...

..and he'll probably go on to only be remembered for one movie, just like Reeve, ironically, it won't be "Superman".

Originally posted by C-Dic
..and he'll probably go on to only be remembered for one movie, just like Reeve, ironically, it won't be "Superman".

What else does he have?

Undressed from MTV? Nobody watched that show...

Routh will be about as remembered as Superman as Pierce B. for James Bond in my opinion.

Noone forgets who plays the Man of Steel. Hell, people remember Dean Cain as Superman even though it was a only soap-opera TV show.

Once you play Superman, you're Superman for life. Which is why Dean Cain will never get another good role again....and he hasn't.

Dean Cain was a failed actor even before "Lois and Clark". He's best known for hosting "Ripley's Believe It or Not".

Originally posted by C-Dic
Dean Cain was a failed actor even before "Lois and Clark". He's best known for hosting "Ripley's Believe It or Not".

Um. No. It's definitely Lois and Clark. He even STATES he played Superman in Lois and Clark in Ripley's. So that should tell you something.

Not to mention L&C was on network television while Rip. was on an obscure cable network.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
This isn't an opinion...it's a bunch of pointless rants.

No it's not. What a mean thing to say...

Originally posted by Draco69
Um. No. It's definitely Lois and Clark. He even STATES he played Superman in Lois and Clark in Ripley's. So that should tell you something.

Not to mention L&C was on network television while Rip. was on an obscure cable network.

TBS is hardly obscure, and if he has to remind people what else he's done before Ripley's, doesn't that suggest nobody knew who he was?

Food for thought.

How can anyone that has seen superman II or even an episode of smallville NOT think this movie wasnt quite what it should of been?
Ive seen more action, GOOD action, in a single episode of smallville. Smallville has done an outstanding job of showing supes powers in extremely cool an unusual,visually-stunning, ways. This movie did VERY little along those lines when compared to smallville. An for Christ sake superman II had more action how can the movie after it have LESS?!? Did the director not see the 2 previous spiderman movies? You HAVE to at least EQUAL that amount of action, there was no struggle at all as I see it.
I was expecting brainiac or darksied or lobo, but nada, nothing. I thought I saw a pic about a month before the movie came out showing a giant robot with supes flying infront of it? I fully expected to see that, again nothing.
The only thing this movie was missing was 20-30 min of pure ass-kicking action, then it would have been acceptable. Honestly did the people making this film even know anything about the comic book or cartoons? Why is spiderman so true to its comic origins an source material an this film wasnt? Fire those morons an hire the spiderman people to get this right! You can clearly see the spiderman films are a labor of love, but superman obviously wasnt it was not done the justice it deserved. You need people that are FAMILIAR with the characters history thru the comics an ect. an know the source material in order to bring out the best most interesting story lines. CLEARLY the fools making this movie didnt know jack about the cool ass things supes has done over the years in the comics an cartoons. There is just no excuse what so ever!
By 1978 standards that was a great movie, by todays standards they should be ashamed.
When a trailer for a movie a year away(spiderman3) is the most exciting part of seeing the movie something is seriously wrong.

It's a SUPERHERO movie. Again. It's meant to be silly.

Why people were expecting Schiendler's List is beyond me.

Moviephiles are almost as a harsh as musicphiles on movies. Movies aren't...movies to them. They're not entertainment. If they were, they wouldn't be taken so seriously and be subject to essays enumerating on the numerous flaws of the movie. Which is sad...

Originally posted by C-Dic
TBS is hardly obscure, and if he has to remind people what else he's done before Ripley's, doesn't that suggest nobody knew who he was?

Food for thought.

ALL shows like that say something on the lines of "You may remember me from..."

Yay, the food you suggested doesn't exist.

Haven't seen the movie yet but if Lex is as good a villain as Star Jones, Spacey has done his job.

Originally posted by Draco69
It's a SUPERHERO movie. Again. It's meant to be silly.

Why people were expecting Schiendler's List is beyond me.

Moviephiles are almost as a harsh as musicphiles on movies. Movies aren't...movies to them. They're not entertainment. If they were, they wouldn't be taken so seriously and be subject to essays enumerating on the numerous flaws of the movie. Which is sad...

"Cinephiles", not "moviephiles", just to make a point. Some movies' flaws are so apparent, they don't have to be dissected, and naturally, we do it to the ones we didn't like, and even more so when the majority of people like it, because it's fun to debate points and opinions. Even more so if those points and opinions are valid, not biased, and those who give it, willing to take criticism and critique.

A lot of you obviously aren't. There's just an overwhelming amount of absurdity in "Superman Returns" that people are failing to grasp, and while it's not a fact, it's almost stronger, because it's a widely shared opinion.

By all means, if non-menacing bald librarians that like rocks, a Mom who can't fess up about paternity, and a cardboard cutout newbie actor taking on an iconic role make for your idea of good cinema, by all means, enjoy it. Bask in it, watch it over and over. Enjoy it. Meanwhile, there will be those that will try to understand how those persistant flaws can go ignored, and others find something tangible in said movie.

I enjoy a lot of movies. A lot of those same movies are far from flawless, but they don't insult my intelligence, don't pose stupid questions, don't include ridiculous, unfathomable plots or the like. I'm a movie elitist, granted, but I'm also a realist. I like and dislike movies for valid reasons. "Superman Returns", again, was just too haggard for me to enjoy even remotely. Namely because I don't like backstories that overshadow a main characters role, villains that pose no threat, and movies that run longer than necessary because they focus on an already established element.

Originally posted by Draco69
ALL shows like that say something on the lines of "You may remember me from..."


Only ones with actors that are only good enough to have done television shows all their lives.

Dr. Zaius, I have to agree with many of your points, but I can't agree that it was a complete flop. It definately needed more action to be a comic book movie and Louis and especially her husband's performance brought the movie down a few pegs. Spacey was great though in my opinion.

Having said that, I'm going to watch it a second time just because it is Superman. Hopefully in the next film they give the characters a bit more depth and pack on the action. Brainiac would be the best villian for a sequel, they could tie him in with Superman's trip to find krypton.

here are reasons why i didnt like the movie:
1. brandon routh is gay
2. lois lane looked like a sorority girl (should've chosen a more classic actor)
3. that whole superman ending up in hospital part is rediculous
4. lex wasnt evil enough
5. not enough crime fighting scenes
6. the director sucks at directing (he directed x men 1 & 2, which sucked also)

here's why i liked the movie:
1. that part where he saves the people of the city was pretty cool
2. they used the classic song and end from the original movie
3. excellent cgi
4. flight scenes were cool
5. i plan on squatting 450 at the gym tomorrow so that part where he lifted the organic land mass was very inspiring

overall, i'd rate the movie a b+
nuff said...peace to all...

Brandon Routh is not gay. Grow up.

Originally posted by Draco69
It's a SUPERHERO movie. Again. It's meant to be silly.

Why people were expecting Schiendler's List is beyond me.

Moviephiles are almost as a harsh as musicphiles on movies. Movies aren't...movies to them. They're not entertainment. If they were, they wouldn't be taken so seriously and be subject to essays enumerating on the numerous flaws of the movie. Which is sad...

I agree.

In anything people do--any hobby, anything they do for entertainment--there are some people who will always suck the "fun" out of it in some way.

Just watch the movie like it's supposed to be--for entertainment.

What if a movie isn't entertaining to someone? Are you supposed to find something you like about it just so you can be like everyone else?

i kinda agree with Dr. Zaius. Seriously guys...wen u walked in the movie Theatre....weren't u expecting an action packed film....or something of that nature....i was really expecting this movie to beat Batman Begins....but in the end i was disapointed. Don't get me wrong...i liked the very few action sequences that they had....without those..i would have hated the movie....but Bryan Singer could have done better... i hope the second movie is more of wat i expected...well i guess we have to wait and see....

I hear Superman Returns is doing quite badly at the box office.

Originally posted by C-Dic
What if a movie isn't entertaining to someone? Are you supposed to find something you like about it just so you can be like everyone else?

No. I phrased what I said wrong. It sounded accusatory.


What I mean is, I think I, as a casual moviegoer and a casual Superman fan, I can enjoy the movie more than somebody who, say, is a hardcore movie or Superman fan. I can watch it simply as entertainment, while one of these other fans will, for lack of a better word, pick out or notice more things that, in their opinion, detract from the movie.

Originally posted by Up In Flames

5. i plan on squatting 450 at the gym tomorrow so that part where he lifted the organic land mass was very inspiring
Do you max at 450? Or work out with it?

Superman has never been just about action
Older audiences that know and love the older superman movies, could understand this.
But the younger generation( mind u,I'm not talking about everyone) is used to seeing action sequence after action sequence. So i'll just listen to them gripping about the lack of action and just think, " Oh u are such a child, grow up!!!............. hopefully"

Originally posted by fini
Superman has never been just about action
Older audiences that know and love the older superman movies, could understand this.
But the younger generation( mind u,I'm not talking about everyone) is used to seeing action sequence after action sequence. So i'll just listen to them gripping about the lack of action and just think, " Oh u are such a child, grow up!!!............. hopefully"


Holy Sh!t!
If I wanted to see a horrible love story taken a sad turn I would go see a Hugh Grant film! This film spent too much time with the Lois/superman BS. Superman an superheros in general are about ACTION an to go light on the action in such a movie is a F-ing sin! How can you be so ignorant?
An what little action that was there wasnt that impressive

Three decades pass and the best they could come up with for a villainous plan was another real estate scheme.

Originally posted by fini
Superman has never been just about action
Older audiences that know and love the older superman movies, could understand this.
But the younger generation( mind u,I'm not talking about everyone) is used to seeing action sequence after action sequence. So i'll just listen to them gripping about the lack of action and just think, " Oh u are such a child, grow up!!!............. hopefully"

Yes, I'm sure that's all well and good. Does your generation of "higher" film criticism also notice when films have no coherent story arch or get bogged down in boring irrelevancies?

That a film have nothing but mindless action sequences is not one of my prerequisites for enjoying trip to the movies. However, this film, which is ostensibly a hero/action piece, had such a conspicuous lack of things going on, that it not only disappointed my genre expectations, but nearly slipped into that special realm of mind-numbing crowd-pleasers as "A.I." and "Phantom Menace". Did your higher critical mind also discern the deeper, hidden meaning behind the lack of action and coherence in those films as well?

The bedrock of issue of Superman Returns, just as in all films, is whether or not it has a compelling story. Forget the question of whether it has "action" or not. Perhaps the better and more comprehensive question is, "Is the narrative engaging?" If the story fails to grab or engage the viewer, then what's the point?

Originally posted by NPC
Holy Sh!t!
If I wanted to see a horrible love story taken a sad turn I would go see a Hugh Grant film! This film spent too much time with the Lois/superman BS. Superman an superheros in general are about ACTION an to go light on the action in such a movie is a F-ing sin! How can you be so ignorant?
An what little action that was there wasnt that impressive

Amen, brother.

Originally posted by fini
Superman has never been just about action
Older audiences that know and love the older superman movies, could understand this.
But the younger generation( mind u,I'm not talking about everyone) is used to seeing action sequence after action sequence. So i'll just listen to them gripping about the lack of action and just think, " Oh u are such a child, grow up!!!............. hopefully"

Oh yes, I nearly forgot. I hope one day that I can grow up, join the pantheon of higher film critics, and learn to appreciate bad movies like fini. Maybe, one day...

Originally posted by BlackC@
Brandon Routh is not gay. Grow up.

Not that it matters, but Singer is, big time.

Originally posted by snoopdogg
Do you max at 450? Or work out with it?

450? Is that all? I warm up with that weight on the curling bar...witih my mind. Dr. Zaius eats guys like you for lunch.

I kinda agree with Dr. Zaius.

I expected more from "Superman Returns". I expected more from the film; everyone.

I especially didn't like the "Superman's son" idea.

After watching "Superman Returns", I got my fill of it, but I left the theatre with my cinematic appetite for the movie unsatisfied.

Superman, don't return again unless you sign a S. Raimi or something.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I kinda agree with Dr. Zaius.

I expected more from "Superman Returns". I expected more from the film; everyone.

I especially didn't like the "Superman's son" idea.

After watching "Superman Returns", I got my fill of it, but I left the theatre with my cinematic appetite for the movie unsatisfied.

Superman, don't return again unless you sign a S. Raimi or something.

Don't be afraid to agree with Dr. Zaius, FistOfTheNorth. He just happens to be right about this film. Of course, he's seldom wrong. And with Superman Returns tanking at the box office, and scores of WB executives and middle management slitting their wrists right about now, your prescient and well-formed opinion will be corroborated by the millions of Americans not going to see this film.

The initial knee-jerk response to defend the movie on this site was generated by hard-core Superman fans, who were willing to give the thumbs up to anything with a big, red "S" on it, no matter what the quality. Those that are going to see the film only now, the non hard-cores, or those who have started to get the bad word-of-mouth back from their friends, will not be administering such positive reviews.

Stand firm, brother. You may stand with Dr. Zaius as his right-hand fist any day.

Thanks for voicing your opinion Dr. I'm still going to see it because I'm getting hooked up w/ free tickets. The mod who downrated your opinion is notorious for being a guy who whines unless your post looks like "OMFG!!! Superman & Batman ruuuuuuuuule!!!!!! GO DC Yaaaaaaaaay!" Learn to ignore him and you'll be OK

Originally posted by brainchild81
Thanks for voicing your opinion Dr. I'm still going to see it because I'm getting hooked up w/ free tickets. The mod who downrated your opinion is notorious for being a guy who whines unless your post looks like "OMFG!!! Superman & Batman ruuuuuuuuule!!!!!! GO DC Yaaaaaaaaay!" Learn to ignore him and you'll be OK

Thanks for the post, Moon Knight. I'm not too stressed about it. BTW, I'd go see the movie, if I were in your position too--especially considering the free ticket angle. Its one of those movies you almost have to see, just like all of the recent Star Wars flics. Just be prepared not to be blown away.

I saw it

Good
The special affects were perfect.
When Supes was accually in it it looked so good.
OK!! Story, the movie wasn't bad at all it was just Average. Batman Begins was better to me eek. I think it was better than Spidey because Spidey sorta sucked.


Bad
To much love story like every otherSuperhero movie which gets annoying. It is the same love story too, nothing different.

Characters were out of character(Supes did a good job and lex did one too)

I didn't like the kid idea(some people might so not really hurting the review)

bad guy was lex yet again, and it gets annoying because the only action anything happens in the movie is..Something falls, Supes catches it and the music plays..over and over again. Supes need a freaking bad guy that will knock his ass into the sun then supes punches him into another planet eeek.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
This isn't an opinion...it's a bunch of pointless rants.

I think he was talking more about the tone of the comments that the actual comments. Love it or hate it, that's fine, but keep it respectful....I think that's what he was getting at.

And we'd do well to remember that before lashing into a mod for no good reason.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I think he was talking more about the tone of the comments that the actual comments. Love it or hate it, that's fine, but keep it respectful....I think that's what he was getting at.

And we'd do well to remember that before lashing into a mod for no good reason.

Didgi sucks, I say kill Digi Go to hell









































Just kidding

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I think he was talking more about the tone of the comments that the actual comments. Love it or hate it, that's fine, but keep it respectful....I think that's what he was getting at.

And we'd do well to remember that before lashing into a mod for no good reason.

I think there's plenty of reason. If I'm mistaken then sorry about that digi, but I just think mods should have more respect for the opinions of others & that one mod in particular doesn't.

Originally posted by snoopdogg
Do you max at 450? Or work out with it?



I can grind out four reps with that... not much compared to what powerlifters can squat, though

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
450? Is that all? I warm up with that weight on the curling bar...witih my mind. Dr. Zaius eats guys like you for lunch.


I guess you dont have to touch weights to move em, huh...

Originally posted by Up In Flames
I guess you dont have to touch weights to move em, huh...

Its called telekinesis, bud. Mind bullets!

I saw the movie and thought it was OK. Nothing mind-blowing about it.

I agree with Dr. Zaius. The movie was horrible. He gave key reasons in a logical displayed anaysis. This movie may appeal to those affected with ADD being that all that stands out in the movie is the constant dramatic shift in loud orchestra music plus some goodCGI scenes. I remember the original movie and although I was around ten when it came out I can recall caring about the characters and feeling the frustration in Supes eyes and the build up of romantic tension between Supes and Lois. Here I got neither. I was left feeling like I was duped and that I was just not mindless enough to give into the CGI and loud noises. I am sorry for you if you see this movie or have seen this movie. My condolences.

This movie follows along with Superman 1 and 2. This movie does not strictly follow the comics, so subtle changes in characters are bound to be seen.

I agree that when you look at this movie from the eyes of a comic fan it falls short.

A friend of mine who never reads superman comics but loves the superman movies asked me how it was. This is what I told him.

"The movie is a perfect continuation of the superman movies. If you were a fan of the movies, you are in for a very big treat. I didnt like it as much as I wanted too because it still didnt have that Comic book superman feel, but over all I walked out happy, I mean god knows we could have had Superman Lives."

Over all I got pretty much what I expected. I walked out of the theater more than happy about spending the 10 odd bucks to see it. Theres a reason most comic book to movie conversions have problems. The problem is that you cant please everyone at the table. You can please the diehard fans and leave the casul readers scratching their heads, or you can make a movie that feeds the needs of the non comic fans.

I honestly just dont think making a movie that feeds both groups is going to work. Although I do feel the superman movies are as good as it gets to feeding both.

The movie should have showed Superman looking around the "graveyard" Krypton. It's the reason why he left and is returning. Hence the title.

Lex could have been more evil if he wasn't so caught up with real estate.

The comic book Lex, once he found out that his bad guy partner was killed with a piano by the little boy, would have immediately kidnapped him. Think of it, he has Superman's kid as a hostage.

Now that would have been a great ending to the film. Not him in a hospital bed. Jason is kidnapped and Superman is desperate to find him.

Originally posted by calvinNhobbes
I agree with Dr. Zaius. The movie was horrible. He gave key reasons in a logical displayed anaysis. This movie may appeal to those affected with ADD being that all that stands out in the movie is the constant dramatic shift in loud orchestra music plus some goodCGI scenes. I remember the original movie and although I was around ten when it came out I can recall caring about the characters and feeling the frustration in Supes eyes and the build up of romantic tension between Supes and Lois. Here I got neither. I was left feeling like I was duped and that I was just not mindless enough to give into the CGI and loud noises. I am sorry for you if you see this movie or have seen this movie. My condolences.

That's not fair. You cannot slag others if they liked the movie. You didn't like it. We did. You have to respect that. Just because you didn't like it and thought it sucked doesn't make it true. It's an opinion.

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Superman fans are vengeful creatures... (even those that are mods.)

Any Superman fan would think the movie was great. They've been starving for Superman cinematic, so whether the film was great, ok, or bad, they're satisfied, and you'd better not dare give the film negative criticism, or face their wrath. The guy might as well have said "Superman (the character) sucks" judging the responses he received.

Dr. Zaius stated his opinion, and I'm pretty sure that when he made this thread, he knew there would be some opposition, (though I did expect the moderator of this forum to be a bit more impartial,) but I think calling him an idiot is excessive, and such behavior should be corrected by a mod.

In my opinion, the action was great, but the story of Superman Returns was lackluster. X-Men's story sucked too. Maybe Brian Singer makes sucky movies?

I agree with your first two paragraphs there.

Originally posted by BlackC@
No it's not. What a mean thing to say...

I agree with you C@t.

Originally posted by C-Dic
What if a movie isn't entertaining to someone?

Then don't watch it and move on...simple. To continue to beat the drum on not liking a movie displays signs of not even liking even before viewing. Peopld did go to see this movie with the negatives already at hand. And why are you thumping Superman Returns so much? Didn't you tell me about not getting so bent out over science fiction? This is science fiction...right?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius

4. Luthor's plan to destroy Superman starts off well--steal Kryptonian technology and use it to conquer the world and kill Superman--but leaves something to be desired in the execution. Luthor uses a crystal from the Fortress of Solitude to create a new continent--one based on the crystaline geology of Krypton. OK, so far. What now? Build some kick-ass Kryptonian weapons? Revive some long-dormant Kryptonian A.I. that runs amok? Build a suit of Kryptonian battle armor to give Supes a run for his money? None of the above. If you said, kick back, smoke a cigar and play a couple of hands of No-Limit Texas Hold-Em, you'd be more on the right track. Yawn...

I agree with a lot of the points you made. I totally agree with this one especially. He should have built some Kryptonian weapons. It would have been great to see him fight Superman in Kryptonian armor as well. Another plot could have been that since the five years that Superman had been missing, Luthor was able to manipulate his way into becoming the most powerful man in Metropolis--possessing great influence and undeserved respect. With Superman gone, people would have been desperate for a savior. Enter Lex Luthor, using "Superman betrayed our trust" propaganda to add to Lois' rant about "A world without Supes"--throw in some "I'm a reformed man" dialogue from Lex, and you get a major Daily Planet headline: Lex Luthor, Savior of Metropolis. Once Superman returned, that would have gave more motivation for Luthor to get rid of him. He should have stolen the crystals when Superman was still missing, built his Kryptonian base, and prepared the weapons. That would have made the movie more exciting. Not to say that it was not exciting considering it has been quite a few years since we saw Superman on screen again, but Singer could have done more to make it a more triumphant return for the Man of Steel.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
OK. Everyone release their collective breath. This movie is absolutely unforgivable! Not just disappointing, not just average, but terrible! As expected, the CGI was great--good thing too, because the story was nonexistent. Nonetheless, an iconic screen shot here and there does not a movie make. Here are but a few of the problems:

1. The need for Superman's return is necessitated by the hero's 5 year leave of absence from earth, during which time, he presumably travels to Krypton in order to confirm its destruction. I say "presumably" since we never get to see any of this search, only a rehashed CGI effect of Krypton exploding. If you're going to use a return to Krypton as a plot device--and its an intriguing idea--develop it! Dont' leave it hanging there like an unzipped fly.

2. Lex Luthor is about as threatening as Star Jones in a verbal joust with Barbara Walters. The movie opens with him swindling an old widow out of her fortune. Are you shaking in your boots yet? Isn't this guy supposed to be the smartest guy on the planet? Sigh...I suppose the screenwriters, out of some misguided desire to one-up Hackman's original performance, decided complete emasculation of Superman's nemesis was the only route to go. Kudos on that guys! Oh yeah, and in case you missed the point that this guy has no penis, the movie made sure to show Parker Posey literally dump his "crystals" into the ocean. At least that was less painful than witnessing the relentless zinging of the movie's villain with "you're bald" jokes.

3. Lois Lane and Routh are as flat as pancakes. There is no emotional depth to the characters at all. I guess the writers realized this when they were penning the script because, a la "Family Ties", "The Cosby Show", "Phantom Menace", or "Full House", they decided to hide their faltering story by turning Lois Lane's 5 year old kid into a major character. As expected, this was typical bait and switch. Bring out the kid everytime we need a tear. And, for extra effect, lets make him speech impaired and only utter things like "Mommy, will he get better? I want him to get better."
Get my gun.

4. Luthor's plan to destroy Superman starts off well--steal Kryptonian technology and use it to conquer the world and kill Superman--but leaves something to be desired in the execution. Luthor uses a crystal from the Fortress of Solitude to create a new continent--one based on the crystaline geology of Krypton. OK, so far. What now? Build some kick-ass Kryptonian weapons? Revive some long-dormant Kryptonian A.I. that runs amok? Build a suit of Kryptonian battle armor to give Supes a run for his money? None of the above. If you said, kick back, smoke a cigar and play a couple of hands of No-Limit Texas Hold-Em, you'd be more on the right track. Yawn...

5. What else? Oh yeah. Lois has a live-in boyfriend played by X-Men's James Marsden. If only they had let Marsden unleash a well-placed optic blast to eleviate the mind-numbing boredom of watching him squirm from one insecurity complex to the next. I guess I can't blame the guy. If I knew my girlfriend's ex was the last son of Krypton, I'd probably be a little uneasy too. However, all sympathy for the character quickly evaporates as he is remorselessly turned into a Women's Sensitivity Seminar Poster Boy.

6. In the end, I didn't know what to be irritated by the most--the film's inability to engage me in any way by the story, or its heavy-handed attempts to endorse some limp-d--k vision of the sensitive, modern man.

There has been some recent attention surrounding the question, "Is Superman Returns a gay film"? I don't think "gay" quite hits the mark on this one. Rather, terms like "limp", "flacid",and "impotent" come to mind.

1. You completely failed to understand that the film was about having Superman return to earth and how much he was missed by the world. The expedition to Krypton was only a backdrop of the story. It was never intended to centralized the story of the film.

2. "Lex Luthor is about as threatening as Star Jones in a verbal joust with Barbara Walters." (rant #1) The Lex Luthor of this franchise is a minimal illustration of the true powerful Lex Luthor of the comic books. In this sense they did an excellent job by maintaining the image of the Lex Luthor from previous films. "Oh yeah, and in case you missed the point that this guy has no penis" (rant #2)

3. "I guess the writers realized this when they were penning the script because, a la "Family Ties", "The Cosby Show", "Phantom Menace", or "Full House"," (rant #3) If you paid close attention the kid is essential in the story. For as later in the film we discover his connection to Superman.

4. You didn't paid ATTENTION!!!!!! Lex wasn't originally intending to kill Superman! He tried to kill him after the FACT that he hear his return. His original plan was to steal the crystals from the fortress and then execute his plan since Superman wasn't on earth!

"What now?" you went with the notion of hating this movie and taking ANY flaws to blow them out of proportion. Nice try!

5. "If only they had let Marsden unleash a well-placed optic blast to eleviate the mind-numbing boredom of watching him squirm from one insecurity complex to the next. " (rant #4) The boyfriend character is NOT to be taken as part of the main characters. Here are the main characters: Superman, Lex Luthor, Lois Lane, The kid.

" Yawn..." yeah you putting me to sleep.

6. "In the end, I didn't know what to be irritated by the most--the film's inability to engage me in any way by the story, or its heavy-handed attempts to endorse some limp-d--k vision of the sensitive, modern man." (rant #5) This is completely a complain. You have no direct point to the movie. You're only posting your negative reaction.

I'm gonna level with you pretty clear right here and right now. You're welcome to disagree and post your thoughts in this forum. No one is going to stop you and if anyone tries I'll personally removed him. Criticism is welcome...however do expect to receive some criticism back. That's how things work. The film is a simple summer popcorn flick...if you were expecting an academy award winner and were disappointed....then by all means is your fault.

Feel free to read my review.

btw-avoid brainchild. I previously banned him for disorderly conduct and now has sour taste for me. Okie Dokie? you may continue...

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Thanks for the post, Moon Knight. I'm not too stressed about it. BTW, I'd go see the movie, if I were in your position too--especially considering the free ticket angle. Its one of those movies you almost have to see, just like all of the recent Star Wars flics. Just be prepared not to be blown away. Deal. Having low expectations is a good way to avoid disappointment.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
2. "Lex Luthor is about as threatening as Star Jones in a verbal joust with Barbara Walters." (rant #1) The Lex Luthor of this franchise is a minimal illustration of the true powerful Lex Luthor of the comic books. In this sense they did an excellent job by maintaining the image of the Lex Luthor from previous films. "Oh yeah, and in case you missed the point that this guy has no penis" (rant #2)

3. "I guess the writers realized this when they were penning the script because, a la "Family Ties", "The Cosby Show", "Phantom Menace", or "Full House"," (rant #3) If you paid close attention the kid is essential in the story. For as later in the film we discover his connection to Superman.Have you never seen Barbara Walters angry? She's a veritable beast. And frankly a lot more menacing than Kevin Spacey.

Too much of this film was about "maintaining the image" of the previous films. Was it meant to be a sequel or a remake? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, yes, but that doesn't mask the fact that Donner did it better, Reeve did it better and Kidder did it much, much better than the woefully miscast Kate Bosworth. If they were trying to avoid comparison to the Donner films this really wasn't the way to go. Too much reverence not enough innovation.

Routh gives a credible Superman but his Clark Kent is somewhat lacking. With Reeve you always had the impression that his Superman was so self-assured he really didn't mind playing the part of the bumbler, like he was secretly having a chuckle about it inside.

Don't get me started on Bosworth....

Competent but uninspiring. Watchable but not always entertaining.

A connection to Superman isn't essential in the story unless it's actually developed. Wheeling out the 5-year old plot device screams screenwriter desperation. "Look, the story's not the same... Lois has a kid."

For crying out loud, there was nothing wrong with Kate Bosworths performance.

Brandon Routh was better than Reeves. You just the kind of fan that thinks "Well, Reeves was the first big screen Superman, so therefore he MUST be the best..."

Margot Kidder did some things better than Kate. Kidder seemed more independant and strong. It seemed liked she really cared for Clark.

What I didn't like is that there was not even a friendship between Lois and Clark. It seemed like Lois cared nothing for him. The most she thought of Clark was that he was a "Guy I work with..."

Originally posted by GODOFALL1
OMG! I almost want to reach out of my computer and smack you in the head for saying something stupid like that!

Originally posted by BlackC@
For crying out loud, there was nothing wrong with Kate Bosworths performance.

Brandon Routh was better than Reeves. You just the kind of fan that thinks "Well, Reeves was the first big screen Superman, so therefore he MUST be the best..."

Margot Kidder did some things better than Kate. Kidder seemed more independant and strong. It seemed liked she really cared for Clark.

What I didn't like is that there was not even a friendship between Lois and Clark. It seemed like Lois cared nothing for him. The most she thought of Clark was that he was a "Guy I work with..." No. He wasn't better than Reeve. He made a good Superman yes. And Bosworth was a destitute man's Lois.

The point about the complete coldness between Lois and Clark I agree with.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
1. You completely failed to understand that the film was about having Superman return to earth and how much he was missed by the world. The expedition to Krypton was only a backdrop of the story. It was never intended to centralized the story of the film.

2. "Lex Luthor is about as threatening as Star Jones in a verbal joust with Barbara Walters." (rant #1) The Lex Luthor of this franchise is a minimal illustration of the true powerful Lex Luthor of the comic books. In this sense they did an excellent job by maintaining the image of the Lex Luthor from previous films. "Oh yeah, and in case you missed the point that this guy has no penis" (rant #2)

3. "I guess the writers realized this when they were penning the script because, a la "Family Ties", "The Cosby Show", "Phantom Menace", or "Full House"," (rant #3) If you paid close attention the kid is essential in the story. For as later in the film we discover his connection to Superman.

4. You didn't paid ATTENTION!!!!!! Lex wasn't originally intending to kill Superman! He tried to kill him after the FACT that he hear his return. His original plan was to steal the crystals from the fortress and then execute his plan since Superman wasn't on earth!

"What now?" you went with the notion of hating this movie and taking ANY flaws to blow them out of proportion. Nice try!

5. "If only they had let Marsden unleash a well-placed optic blast to eleviate the mind-numbing boredom of watching him squirm from one insecurity complex to the next. " (rant #4) The boyfriend character is NOT to be taken as part of the main characters. Here are the main characters: Superman, Lex Luthor, Lois Lane, The kid.

" Yawn..." yeah you putting me to sleep.

6. "In the end, I didn't know what to be irritated by the most--the film's inability to engage me in any way by the story, or its heavy-handed attempts to endorse some limp-d--k vision of the sensitive, modern man." (rant #5) This is completely a complain. You have no direct point to the movie. You're only posting your negative reaction.

I'm gonna level with you pretty clear right here and right now. You're welcome to disagree and post your thoughts in this forum. No one is going to stop you and if anyone tries I'll personally removed him. Criticism is welcome...however do expect to receive some criticism back. That's how things work. The film is a simple summer popcorn flick...if you were expecting an academy award winner and were disappointed....then by all means is your fault.

Feel free to read my review.

btw-avoid brainchild. I previously banned him for disorderly conduct and now has sour taste for me. Okie Dokie? you may continue...

Lot of material to address here, Wrathful Dwarf.

1) I know the point of the film was the "return" of Superman. However, one of the principles of good storytelling is maintaining an economy of material. In other words, don't bring things up in story that are extraneous and not meant to be used. Kal-el's return to Krypton is way to tantalizing an idea to just leave dangling. It would be as if "Return of the Jedi" failed to follow up on the revelation in "Empire" that Darth Vader was Luke's father. Introducing important material that you don't develop is a sign of poor control over the materials of your story. In other words, poor craft.

2) The decision to continue with the treatment of Lex Luthor from the original films was a poor decision. Although in my opinion Supes I and II are vastly superior to the current version, and I generally like Gene Hackman, Donner's decision to portray the villain as a two-bit hustler was one of the movie's only poor decisions. More of the same in Singer's version was an "homage" to a bad idea. Kooky real estate schemes are just not threatening enough.

3) I got the connection between the kid and Superman. The kid is Superman Jr. Got it! Not the greatest idea. However, lets assume that this story element will lead to rich material in the sequel--doubtful--but let's assume. The fact remains that this kid actor and the script they gave him sucked! Wheeling out cute kids is a classic bait and switch tactic for writers that are imaginatively tapped out. Two examples, I think, will illustrate my point. Classic case in point of sappy kiddy sentimentality wheeled out in service of bad story writing--"Phantom Menace." Who can deny that the little brat they used in this film fell completely flat and failed to elicit any of the latent menace/darkness of Anakin Skywalker? Classic case in point of good child acting/writing that effectively moves the storytelling forward and achieves the desired effect in the movie--"The Shining" or "Sixth Sense". Take your pick. Both of these films took their child characters seriously and wrote appropriately strong scenes for them. Nor surprisingly, the films worked!

4) Uhhh. I guess you got me. Lex wasn't originally planning to kill Superman. Ok. This makes his scheme even more confusing. His plan to create a new continent and kill billions of people to sit down and play a hand of No Limit Texas Hold-Em with his prison buddies seems a bit like overkill, doesn't it? By the way, as far I could see, billions of people didn't die, nor did the continental U.S. sink Atlantis-like into the ocean. Metropolis took some property damage. That was about it. Well, at least Luthor got to sit down and watch a couple of poker hands before his full proof plot was destroyed! Hurray for small victories!

5) Marsdon was a main character. You know how I know? He occupied lots of screen time. I go back to the principles of good story writing. Don't waste your time developing characters that are peripheral to the main story arch. Its distracting and self-defeating. The adventures of the Lois Lane Household was not what I signed on for when I paid money to see this movie.

6) You're right. My reaction to the film was negative based on the reasons stated above. I've stated many times in this and other threads that I went into the movie with high expectations. Part of my vehement dislike of this film comes from my patent disbelief that a major movie studio could take 20 years off from a film property and not end up developing something better than this. "Batman Begins" was a masterpiece and perhaps, besides "Munich", the best film from last year, period. If a studio can make it work with Bats, why not Supes? Answer. Chris Nolan and David Goyer are actually talented. Everything comes down to good script and direction. Everything else is secondary. WB needs to seriously reconsider who they put to work on any Superman sequels.

7) Finally, I don't ever recall stating in any post that I expected to be patted on the back for my critique. I posted it to state my opinion and generate discussion. I like talking about movies, so I sought out a forum to engage in this activity. I guess I expected plenty of people to disagree with my review. What I didn't expect was the amount of vitriol and personal anger. People on this board need to realize that I'm analyzing a movie. A movie. If I slip in a couple of smart-ass zingers while I'm writing, all I can say is that its my style to use sarcasm. On the flip side, people need to relax a little and realize that I'm not insulting their persons and/or loved ones.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Lot of material to address here, Wrathful Dwarf.

1) I know the point of the film was the "return" of Superman. However, one of the principles of good storytelling is maintaining an economy of material. In other words, don't bring things up in story that are extraneous and not meant to be used. Kal-el's return to Krypton is way to tantalizing an idea to just leave dangling. It would be as if "Return of the Jedi" failed to follow up on the revelation in "Empire" that Darth Vader was Luke's father. Introducing important material that you don't develop is a sign of poor control over the materials of your story. In other words, poor craft.

Again, I'll repeat since you have a problem understanding. The trip to Krypton was not the main objective only a backdrop of the film. If you get the point that the film is for the "return" why do you even bother with the Krypton part?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
2) The decision to continue with the treatment of Lex Luthor from the original films was a poor decision. Although in my opinion Supes I and II are vastly superior to the current version, and I generally like Gene Hackman, Donner's decision to portray the villain as a two-bit hustler was one of the movie's only poor decisions. More of the same in Singer's version was an "homage" to a bad idea. Kooky real estate schemes are just not threatening enough.

What? Poor decision? Says you! Did you read my post? The Lex Luthor version of the movie franchise is a minimal representation of the comic books. Those are not poor decisions those were the best decisions. The character of Luthor is far more complicated and too powerful. Bringing a purify version of Lex Luthor to the Superman movies would only complicate the film even more.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
3) I got the connection between the kid and Superman. The kid is Superman Jr. Got it! Not the greatest idea. However, lets assume that this story element will lead to rich material in the sequel--doubtful--but let's assume. The fact remains that this kid actor and the script they gave him sucked! Wheeling out cute kids is a classic bait and switch tactic for writers that are imaginatively tapped out. Two examples, I think, will illustrate my point. Classic case in point of sappy kiddy sentimentality wheeled out in service of bad story writing--"Phantom Menace." Who can deny that the little brat they used in this film fell completely flat and failed to elicit any of the latent menace/darkness of Anakin Skywalker? Classic case in point of good child acting/writing that effectively moves the storytelling forward and achieves the desired effect in the movie--"The Shining" or "Sixth Sense". Take your pick. Both of these films took their child characters seriously and wrote appropriately strong scenes for them. Nor surprisingly, the films worked!

You got the connection of the kid and Superman? Good! Use a spoiler tag next time. You feel the kid sucked. Fine, that's your opinion. I didn't think he did. I'm actually glad the simplified the kid. It actually throws off the audience so that later the surprise comes out. Neat trick I'll say. Please do NOT bring out another movie to justify your criticism. The Shining and Sixth Sense belong to a different type of Cinema. That's a bogus attempt to connect films.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
4) Uhhh. I guess you got me. Lex wasn't originally planning to kill Superman. Ok. This makes his scheme even more confusing. His plan to create a new continent and kill billions of people to sit down and play a hand of No Limit Texas Hold-Em with his prison buddies seems a bit like overkill, doesn't it? By the way, as far I could see, billions of people didn't die, nor did the continental U.S. sink Atlantis-like into the ocean. Metropolis took some property damage. That was about it. Well, at least Luthor got to sit down and watch a couple of poker hands before his full proof plot was destroyed! Hurray for small victories!

If I remenber correctly, Lex didn't sit around to play cards. He was awaiting for his master plan to unfold before making his demands.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
5) Marsdon was a main character. You know how I know? He occupied lots of screen time. I go back to the principles of good story writing. Don't waste your time developing characters that are peripheral to the main story arch. Its distracting and self-defeating. The adventures of the Lois Lane Household was not what I signed on for when I paid money to see this movie.

Marsdon was not a main character. Nor he was a lesser character. He was just a character. Jimmy Olsen did occupy a fair share of time in the movie....so he is also a main character? No, I don't think so.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
6) You're right. My reaction to the film was negative based on the reasons stated above. I've stated many times in this and other threads that I went into the movie with high expectations. Part of my vehement dislike of this film comes from my patent disbelief that a major movie studio could take 20 years off from a film property and not end up developing something better than this. "Batman Begins" was a masterpiece and perhaps, besides "Munich", the best film from last year, period. If a studio can make it work with Bats, why not Supes? Answer. Chris Nolan and David Goyer are actually talented. Everything comes down to good script and direction. Everything else is secondary. WB needs to seriously reconsider who they put to work on any Superman sequels.

See, I was right. It was your fault. I went to see the movie with enthusiasm but at the same time I wasn't looking forward to an Academy Award winning film. I agree Batman Begins was a masterpiece. When I went to see it I was really looking forward to it. However, I wasn't going to expect a great film. As the film unfolded before my eyes I was completely blown away by how good the film was. Prior to Batman Begins I was expecting an average summer popcorn flick. With Superman Returns I was expecting a summer popcorn film....and I got it. That's not bad.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
7) Finally, I don't ever recall stating in any post that I expected to be patted on the back for my critique. I posted it to state my opinion and generate discussion. I like talking about movies, so I sought out a forum to engage in this activity. I guess I expected plenty of people to disagree with my review. What I didn't expect was the amount of vitriol and personal anger. People on this board need to realize that I'm analyzing a movie. A movie. If I slip in a couple of smart-ass zingers while I'm writing, all I can say is that its my style to use sarcasm. On the flip side, people need to relax a little and realize that I'm not insulting their persons and/or loved ones.

What a coincedence...I like to talk about movies as well. That's why I join this forum back in 2003. I expect people to disagree and agree with me. I think everyone is pretty much relax here...those that don't will be reminded to keep themselves in order.

And if you say is just a movie....then why do you keep arguing about it? Gee, usually when people don't like a film they make their comments and forget it about and move on. I've done that...however if you feel like spending the entire summer blasting Superman Returns because you didn't like it....well, knock yourself out.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
And if you say is just a movie....then why do you keep arguing about it? Gee, usually when people don't like a film they make their comments and forget it about and move on. I've done that...however if you feel like spending the entire summer blasting Superman Returns because you didn't like it....well, knock yourself out.

Because I keep getting called out on the board for expressing my opinion. At various times I've been told that someone wants to "smack" me, I've been told I'm an "idiot", that I "bore" people, and, generally speaking, that my analysis is not welcome or appreciated. None of these ad hominum attacks particularly worry me, but they do prompt me to respond.

Even with all the acrimony, I enjoy discussing topics of common interest with other people, even those with whom I disagree. However, those discussions are generally more interesting when people are making substantive arguments.

Now I did enjoy the movie but I have to agree with alot of points that Dr. Zaius made. This Superman movie could of been done soooooooooo much better. It had the potential to be one of the best action pack movies out there with alot of suspense. They had the tech and computer wiz power to do it but they focus more on a love story that never happend.

I guess maybe they cut off on the action part because of the extra money it would of cost but they could of use less technical equipment to still make it a good action pack movie.

The movie focused more on a love story. I guess they are trying to do both, action and a love triangle that is going to cause drama of some sort.

This kid thing threw me off completely. Superman having a son??? Did he ever had a son????????

Originally posted by BlackC@
That's not fair. You cannot slag others if they liked the movie. You didn't like it. We did. You have to respect that. Just because you didn't like it and thought it sucked doesn't make it true. It's an opinion.

There correction made. My bad. I still feel sorry for those who have seen this movies because I really feel sorry. I am not slagging anyone. It is just too bad that some can't see how bad this movie is and convince other to go and see it thus encouraging such bad scripts, dialogues, to be made. My opinion but then in the end isn't it all really just subjective opinion?

Your still posting as if it's fact. You can't say "It is just too bad that some can't see how bad this movie is and convince other to go and see it thus encouraging such bad scripts, dialogues, to be made."

You can only say "I thought the script etc. was bad."

If you going to be stubborn and unfair, don't post here.

Originally posted by BlackC@
Your still posting as if it's fact. You can't say "It is just too bad that some can't see how bad this movie is and convince other to go and see it thus encouraging such bad scripts, dialogues, to be made."

You can only say "I thought the script etc. was bad."

If you going to be stubborn and unfair, don't post here.

Actually, the phrase "it's too bad..." strongly indicates that the following part of the statement is an opinion. Its an instance of the subjunctive case, or speech that indicates a subjective state of mind--i.e. an opinion or hypothetical situation.

Even if that phrase was lacking, it is still perfectly appropriate to state a strong opinion by stating it in the indicative case.

As for CalvinNHobbes being stubborn and unfair in making these, what seem to me, rather innocuous comments, I suggest you check out some of the crude ad hominum attacks engaged in by some posters on this board. (Look no further than the thread titled "Suck My Balls, Kronick92".) It doesn't get more unfair, stubborn, and, quite frankly, brain dead than that.

Dear Mr. Dwarf,

As regards your distaste for Dr. Zaius' well-drawn and thoughtful post regarding the film (the caustic and tasteless though spot on ad hominum attacks on Ms. Jones-Reynolds and Ms. Walters notwithstanding) it strikes me as odd that you rely on the position that you are not looking for Oscar (r)-worthy fare in the cinematic offering of Superman Returns. I wonder if this is an instance of an argumentative "red-herring," used to throw off the scent, as it were. By way of several rhetorical questions I shall hope to lead us to an insight: are the requirements of a movie fundementally different if one is created to win an audience or a statue? Does the piece not require a beginning, middle and an end? Does a hero need conflict? Does a villain need a motivation? Does a villain's motivation need to be commensurate with the abilities of the hero?

Mr. Goldsman said it best when he offered that two fashion designers may (and will) create two different dresses, but they use the same mannequin.

In other words, the sub-strata and inner architecture of a story are universal. The top-dressing is what changes between good films. I hope that this adds something to this discussion. I believe Dr. Zaius may be on to something here, and dismissing the core of his argument (based here on Aristotle, I think) because you don't like the way it sounds is an insufficient bias, methinks. Cheerio and God bless...

Dear Sr. Wendy,

I don't think you know what you're talking about. Feel free to read more on my review. I don't need Aristotle to tell me otherwise. Thank you.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Actually, the phrase "it's too bad..." strongly indicates that the following part of the statement is an opinion. Its an instance of the subjunctive case, or speech that indicates a subjective state of mind--i.e. an opinion or hypothetical situation.

Even if that phrase was lacking, it is still perfectly appropriate to state a strong opinion by stating it in the indicative case.

As for CalvinNHobbes being stubborn and unfair in making these, what seem to me, rather innocuous comments, I suggest you check out some of the crude ad hominum attacks engaged in by some posters on this board. (Look no further than the thread titled "Suck My Balls, Kronick92".) It doesn't get more unfair, stubborn, and, quite frankly, brain dead than that.

that thread was hilarious.

Originally posted by Sr. Wendy
Dear Mr. Dwarf,

As regards your distaste for Dr. Zaius' well-drawn and thoughtful post regarding the film

I agree with you Sr.Wendy.It was a well drawn and thoughtful post that Dr Zaius made.

Hey Parker,

Have you given or planning to give your review on SR yet? Just curious...

No I haven't given my review of it yet but I am planning to after I see it next weekend.I just haven't gotten around to seeing it yet.See I don't have the same excitement and enthusiasm for it like I did with Batman Begins because Superman unlike Batman, already had two good superman movies made so that being the case,my excitement and enthusiasm for supes isnt there like it was for Begins.

Bless me, Sr. Wendy!

shut the thread

how about everybody just accept that the movie was half good/ half lame... happy?

A counter point? There is no reason for me to give a counter point. This is just like someone saying The Matrix was a BAD movie or Spiderman was a BAD movie. You're an idiot......period. Don't say dumb things, and I wont have a reason to call you an idiot.

Originally posted by GODOFALL1
A counter point? There is no reason for me to give a counter point. This is just like someone saying The Matrix was a BAD movie or Spiderman was a BAD movie. You're an idiot......period. Don't say dumb things, and I wont have a reason to call you an idiot.

What a surprise! No counter argument? I guess people like me, or others that disagree with you, don't dignify a substantive response, huh?

Or maybe you just don't have an argument at all...which is more than likely the case. You cannot debate a topic by emotionally venting about it and telling people that they're idiots. Well, I guess you can...but it makes you look more like the idiot instead.

By the way, Matrix and Spiderman were both good movies. Superman Returns was not.

Originally posted by BlackC@
I thought it was a good movie, but Dr. Zaius made some nice points.

What I didn't like is that Lois and Clark had no connection. They should have been portrayed as very good friends. But instead, Clark was nothing more to Lois than a "guy I work with."

It had some nice qualities, the plane sequence was great, Supermans' heat rays look awsome. Flying sequences= amazing!

Superman going back to Krypton should have been explored more.

I thought that Singer did an excellent job of showing us how Clark Kent maintains his identity. Lois doesn't suspect Clark of being Superman for the simple reason that she barely knows he exists. Instead of making Clark a bumbling baffoon like the Donners did he made Clark less than ordinary. He blends into the woodwork and he did that brilliantly.

Another reason no one figures it out is that they aren't even aware that Superman has an alter ego. To most people Superman is always out saving someone. Notice how the news reports pointed out that he always seemed to be in a different part of the world. Why would anyone suspect that a man who could do all the things that Superman can would choose to walk around like an average guy?

Theorectically, Superman could save people all the time and then just go hang out at the fortress of solitude until he wanted to go save people again.

There was a lot that I disagreed with in this film. That being said I thought that the way Singer and Routh approached Clark was dead on.

Originally posted by GODOFALL1
A counter point? There is no reason for me to give a counter point. This is just like someone saying The Matrix was a BAD movie or Spiderman was a BAD movie. You're an idiot......period. Don't say dumb things, and I wont have a reason to call you an idiot.

I told you stop and you continue to flame. Enough have temp ban for now.

I never saw the originals, so maybe I had different standards going in, but even though this movie wasn't perfect, I thought it was excellent- very entertaining- and that it was a nice homage/reintroduction to Superman.

As someone who was basically new to the Superman franchise, I was pleasantly surprised by how fully I was able to follow the movie and all the Superman background. My personal favorite explanation was how Kryptonite got it's name- I knew enough about Superman to know about Kryptonite- but could never understand why his home planet and his Achilles Heel shared the same name. I thought maybe they just used "Krypt-" as their prefix for everything, like "Valmorphanize" in Team America. But nope- its the radioactive planet.


Other comments-

- I LOVED the music (saw it in IMAX, where you can feel, as well as hear, the awesome score)

- OK, i have to agree that I thought Lois Lane was kind of/really lame- she just didn't really stand out in any way. When Superman zooms by the plane window, you'd think she'd react. Even just a little. Like, maybe eyes widening in surprise or disbelief. No? Well, ok, I guess...

- Brandon Routh did an incredible job with his role. I don't care if it wasn't original, if he was copying Reeves, it was great. Clark Kent was adorable in his reactions, and he played Superman with a confidence that was remarkable, more so when you consider that this was his first big role.

- Jimmy Olson was fantastic. I don't even know how to describe it excatly, except that he's just what you'd expect (at least what I expected).

Originally posted by epicadventure
I never saw the originals, so maybe I had different standards going in, but even though this movie wasn't perfect, I thought it was excellent- very entertaining- and that it was a nice homage/reintroduction to Superman.

As someone who was basically new to the Superman franchise, I was pleasantly surprised by how fully I was able to follow the movie and all the Superman background. My personal favorite explanation was how Kryptonite got it's name- I knew enough about Superman to know about Kryptonite- but could never understand why his home planet and his Achilles Heel shared the same name. I thought maybe they just used "Krypt-" as their prefix for everything, like "Valmorphanize" in Team America. But nope- its the radioactive planet.


Other comments-

- I LOVED the music (saw it in IMAX, where you can feel, as well as hear, the awesome score)

- OK, i have to agree that I thought Lois Lane was kind of/really lame- she just didn't really stand out in any way. When Superman zooms by the plane window, you'd think she'd react. Even just a little. Like, maybe eyes widening in surprise or disbelief. No? Well, ok, I guess...

- Brandon Routh did an incredible job with his role. I don't care if it wasn't original, if he was copying Reeves, it was great. Clark Kent was adorable in his reactions, and he played Superman with a confidence that was remarkable, more so when you consider that this was his first big role.

- Jimmy Olson was fantastic. I don't even know how to describe it excatly, except that he's just what you'd expect (at least what I expected).
Ah, another Firefly fan. Props.

Originally posted by MattDay
man you guys read into things too much, whenever did the original superman films seem correct? so many things that were wrong or he did in a way which wouldn't happen because it would melt or bend... my god get a life guys... and fast because I'd shoot people who dribble on about something normal people don't even realise as something that bad until you open your mouth or type it into a forum where you cant get punched in the head... lucky you!

Oh yeah, I just went back and found this little gem by MattDay, who more or less stated that he wanted to shoot people like me--or at least punch them in the head--who have the temerity to point out inconvenient little things that disrupt his Candy Land-type universe. Sorry, Matt.

I guess I am "lucky" to be on a discussion forum and not on an Ultimate Fighting queue, lest I tempt your terrible Anglo wrath in person. After all, that is what the Brits are known for, right? Bare knuckled brawling and ass-kicking! Memories of "The Transporter" are flooding over me now, sending a shudder down my spine.

MattDay, Dr. Zaius prescribes two Zanexs for you plus a year of anger management counseling with Dr. Phil.

I must say that I profoundly disagree with you're dismantling of the film Dr Zau-head. I loved it. But You as I are entiltled to your opinion, so i will not insult you. The iconic shots, great action scenes and Routh reminding me of Reeves, taking me back to the reason I fell in love with supes, and all comicbook heros in first place, was enough for me.

Fair enough.

I saw the movie last week.

And yes, it is bad IMO.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
OK. Everyone release their collective breath. This movie is absolutely unforgivable! Not just disappointing, not just average, but terrible! As expected, the CGI was great--good thing too, because the story was nonexistent. Nonetheless, an iconic screen shot here and there does not a movie make. Here are but a few of the problems:

1. The need for Superman's return is necessitated by the hero's 5 year leave of absence from earth, during which time, he presumably travels to Krypton in order to confirm its destruction. I say "presumably" since we never get to see any of this search, only a rehashed CGI effect of Krypton exploding. If you're going to use a return to Krypton as a plot device--and its an intriguing idea--develop it! Dont' leave it hanging there like an unzipped fly.

2. Lex Luthor is about as threatening as Star Jones in a verbal joust with Barbara Walters. The movie opens with him swindling an old widow out of her fortune. Are you shaking in your boots yet? Isn't this guy supposed to be the smartest guy on the planet? Sigh...I suppose the screenwriters, out of some misguided desire to one-up Hackman's original performance, decided complete emasculation of Superman's nemesis was the only route to go. Kudos on that guys! Oh yeah, and in case you missed the point that this guy has no penis, the movie made sure to show Parker Posey literally dump his "crystals" into the ocean. At least that was less painful than witnessing the relentless zinging of the movie's villain with "you're bald" jokes.

3. Lois Lane and Routh are as flat as pancakes. There is no emotional depth to the characters at all. I guess the writers realized this when they were penning the script because, a la "Family Ties", "The Cosby Show", "Phantom Menace", or "Full House", they decided to hide their faltering story by turning Lois Lane's 5 year old kid into a major character. As expected, this was typical bait and switch. Bring out the kid everytime we need a tear. And, for extra effect, lets make him speech impaired and only utter things like "Mommy, will he get better? I want him to get better."
Get my gun.

4. Luthor's plan to destroy Superman starts off well--steal Kryptonian technology and use it to conquer the world and kill Superman--but leaves something to be desired in the execution. Luthor uses a crystal from the Fortress of Solitude to create a new continent--one based on the crystaline geology of Krypton. OK, so far. What now? Build some kick-ass Kryptonian weapons? Revive some long-dormant Kryptonian A.I. that runs amok? Build a suit of Kryptonian battle armor to give Supes a run for his money? None of the above. If you said, kick back, smoke a cigar and play a couple of hands of No-Limit Texas Hold-Em, you'd be more on the right track. Yawn...

5. What else? Oh yeah. Lois has a live-in boyfriend played by X-Men's James Marsden. If only they had let Marsden unleash a well-placed optic blast to eleviate the mind-numbing boredom of watching him squirm from one insecurity complex to the next. I guess I can't blame the guy. If I knew my girlfriend's ex was the last son of Krypton, I'd probably be a little uneasy too. However, all sympathy for the character quickly evaporates as he is remorselessly turned into a Women's Sensitivity Seminar Poster Boy.

6. In the end, I didn't know what to be irritated by the most--the film's inability to engage me in any way by the story, or its heavy-handed attempts to endorse some limp-d--k vision of the sensitive, modern man.

There has been some recent attention surrounding the question, "Is Superman Returns a gay film"? I don't think "gay" quite hits the mark on this one. Rather, terms like "limp", "flacid",and "impotent" come to mind.

Agreed, agreed, agreed and agreed.

Routh would have made a nice Superboy, but Man of Steel? Give me a break - the only believable scene in the movie was where he was getting the crap kicked out of him by the Main Man himself, Luthor, the Saviour of Mankind.

I, unfortunately, greatly though I do admire the esteemed Mr Luthor himself (but then, who doesn't?) have to agree, as well, that the movie made him out to much more of a sideshow, a somehow humorous villain, which I suppose they had to do, to make Superman even somewhat believable as a challenge.

But this was a joke.

Instead of harder, faster, meaner, stronger and tougher, I felt like I was stuck is some "Pleasantville" dimension, where bad guys are cute, tough guys are sensitive and strong guys get their asses handed to them.

Superwimp.

He should have stayed dead. Or on his planet. He ain't wanted, and he's definitely not needed.

Get some balls, man!

Saw it last week in IMAX for free. It was pretty lame, but the price was right. I had low expectations going in, so I'm not angry. I didn't notice it before the movie, but Routh does resemble Reeve.

Fortunately, Superman Returns is just super-good

Originally posted by .Dance_Inside.
Fortunately, Superman Returns is just super-good

Nice.

Dr Zaius,got a question for you about superman returns,check my pm. to you.

The whole point is the person that strated this forum said the movie was SUPERBAD. Do you know what superbad means? That means it sucked. And there is no way it sucked. It may have lacked certain qualities but the movie was good. SUPERBAD? You want to know superbad movies?

The Village
The LifeAquatic
Open Water
Million Dollar Baby
HellRaiser Deader

Those are SuperBad. ANd superman returns was WAYYYYY better than any of those. Superman REturns was not superbad.

Saw Million Dollar Baby. It was a good deal better than SR. Don't know about the others.

super good, one of the best superhero movies so far... that IS argueable because it got a lot of 5 outta 5's, when i looked at it's review on amazon (i know it isnt out on dvd, but people who have seen it are reviewing it from the cinema) it has got the same rating as spiderman and spiderman 2, so from that source it's roughly the same in overall quality... it isn't bad at all... keep the peace dudes! (and dudettes)

This is the most super, best, beautiful, dramatic, charming, enthralling, interesting, fantastic, award-deserving, movie I have watched in a long time. I am hoping that this wins an oscar for Brandon Routh who is definitely a shoo-in for the award. Its definitely a blockbuster movie! It's better than Titanic and SpiderMan combined in the Box office! My heart is still pounding from the action scenes in the movie! This will probably go down as this century's best movie ever!

i dont agree with the box office though, it isnt doing well compared to pirates, but it does have very memorable moments in it and the damn music sticks in your head for a few days after you watched it.

Brainchild, Million Dollar Baby was a good deal better than Superman Returns? Million Dollar Baby SUCKED!! What a horrible, horrible movie. Lets have a female boxer get ripped off, then spend the last hour of the movie watching her slowly suffer, have her leg removed, and then die. And her family? OMG! Worst movie EVER! Superman REturns was wwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaayyyyy better.

yea, it's a very emotional film million dollar baby, but it wasn't that great, it's one of them films that are supposed to entice you into the story, i fell asleep sleeping

yeah I fell asleep during million Dollar baby too..
wow..Superman Returns still gets my heart racing when I watch it, I saw it again last night for the 5th time and I still get goose bumps, seriously I think the director of POTC knew it wasn't going to be a good movie so they released it the same week as Superman Returns so that all the fans of the first movie would go see it instead of Superman Returns, because I recently saw Pirates and nothing was really memorable, or funny it wasn't original at all. Basically all the same jokes as the first one. I hated it. Superman Returns is a much better film and I enjoyed fully and will see it again in theatres without a doubt.

well that is the difference, because superman hasn't been in the big screen fora while he doesn't have the general fan base that pirates has.

and from reviews pirates is a star lower than superman returns, so it generally is for a fact that superman is considered overall from everyones opinions put together is better than pirates, its just the new fan base, but now superman is reintroduced, the sequel is the defining moment for superman and contemporary cinema!

yeah I agree, the sequel will bring in the money, just watch!

Originally posted by MattDay
well that is the difference, because superman hasn't been in the big screen fora while he doesn't have the general fan base that pirates has.

and from reviews pirates is a star lower than superman returns, so it generally is for a fact that superman is considered overall from everyones opinions put together is better than pirates, its just the new fan base, but now superman is reintroduced, the sequel is the defining moment for superman and contemporary cinema!

Th fanbase from the comics alone would guarantee a decent return... you have parents who watched the originals and liked em bringing their kids to returns too...

POTC wasn't great at all to be honest though, i agree...

Originally posted by .Dance_Inside.
yeah I fell asleep during million Dollar baby too..
wow..Superman Returns still gets my heart racing when I watch it, I saw it again last night for the 5th time and I still get goose bumps, seriously I think the director of POTC knew it wasn't going to be a good movie so they released it the same week as Superman Returns so that all the fans of the first movie would go see it instead of Superman Returns, because I recently saw Pirates and nothing was really memorable, or funny it wasn't original at all. Basically all the same jokes as the first one. I hated it. Superman Returns is a much better film and I enjoyed fully and will see it again in theatres without a doubt.

word up, i boycotted potc II...not that it matters like all of america saw the retarded film...i watched the first potc at my friends house on video and it was difficult to sit through the whole thing, why people love it so much is beyond me....anyway i'm glad you've seen superman 5 times and are planning on seeing it again, i've seen it 4 times (once in 3rd) and plan on seeing it at least once more, and each time i go i make sure to bring someone with me who hasn't seen it yet and hopefully they pass on the message that it's an amazing movie to their friends who haven't seen it, so far everyone i've seen it with has loved it as well, just not as much as i do

Superman returns is a horrible, horrible movie. Only people that want to put their noses in Singer's ass would like this movie.
It was totally un-original in plot as it was the SAME plot from the 1978 movie.
Plot=suck
Spiderman plot from the comic=1 billion $$
Superman rehashed from 1978= not even 200 million$$
go figure
The villan was a joke, nothing menacing at all, no one was threatened on a massive scale, yet billions were going to die? Maybe die laughing.
Villain=suck
A child? This Superman was supposed to be a continuance of the Donner films even down to the sappy line after he saved the plane. "Fly is still the safest form of transportation, yada, yada". Yet here we have Lois a single parent? Totally stupid, made no sense at all. If she had a child with supes why doesnt she remember he was clark? Giantic plot hole that destroys the entire film an the whole reason to have Superman Return ironically. For the whole reason to have superman "return" was to insert a 5 year old child, remove the child an there is very little that makes you recall he returned from space.

I'll also point to a comparsion with the HULK movie when the Hulk was falling from space, there was a magnificent cut scene. Now in Superman Returns, when supes falls from spaces all we see is supes falling as nearly a tiny dot from a 1/2 mile away. Horribly conceptualized shots and action in every concievable way. The Smallville show puts you closer and sometimes INSIDE the action of explosions, ect.

In short the director is a moron when it comes to action, this was a love story for a Jerry Springer episode. X-men sucked, if you like X-men no wonder you like this movie.

And if you think Potc 2 was a bad movie then there is no hope for you. That movie totally delivered.

POTC had no originality and had to same ****ing jokes as the first movie.

Originally posted by .Dance_Inside.
POTC had no originality and had to same ****ing jokes as the first movie.

I agree on POTC. It sucked...big time. I think, overall, this is the worst summer for movies that I can ever remember. I am now only looking forward to the fall and the following offerings:

1. The Prestige (The new Chris Nolan film with alot of Batman Begins cast. Check out the trailer online. Awsome!)

2. Casino Royale (The new, apparently gritty, Bond flick explaining the origin of 007.)

3. Night Listener (The new Robin Williams flick. A psychological thriller.)

Originally posted by GODOFALL1
Brainchild, Million Dollar Baby was a good deal better than Superman Returns? Million Dollar Baby SUCKED!! What a horrible, horrible movie. Lets have a female boxer get ripped off, then spend the last hour of the movie watching her slowly suffer, have her leg removed, and then die. And her family? OMG! Worst movie EVER! Superman REturns was wwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaayyyyy better. S.R. was boring from start to finish. I became angry that I didn't fall asleep after a while. That whole picking up the island thing was ridiculous.

Originally posted by brainchild81
S.R. was boring from start to finish. I became angry that I didn't fall asleep after a while. That whole picking up the island thing was ridiculous.

no more ridiculous than Supes repairing the San Andreas faultline or Supes turning back time by spinning around the earth

agreed

actually is was fairly plausible considering that we can't compare it to anything we've actually done, and they kept a high amount of realism for a superhero flick, like the plane having vibration running through it when superman held it from the front and the city have mass vibration or earthquake type movement from the crack in the earth forming from the new island pushing apart the land masses, it wasnt too bad at all compared to the originals

why does everybody think that the child is a plothole? isn't it obvious that lois met richard right after boning superman? and that they concieved? and had not gotten married since lois is still hoping for the return of superman? highly plausible...

the plothole is in the end when lois told him he is the father of the child. how can she not know he's clark by then? did superman only erase the part where lois knows that he and clark are one and the same?

Originally posted by 113
no more ridiculous than Supes repairing the San Andreas faultline or Supes turning back time by spinning around the earth I'm not a fan of the old films either. I liked them when I was young, but now they just seem lame. I do think the time thing was asinine, but picking up and island made of green K just seems stupid to me. That's like Captain Planet picking up an island made of trash & toxic waste.

Open Water
The LIfeAquatic
BRoken Flowers
Lost in Translation

Those movies were boring from end to end brainkid

/\
'-------- Somebody's gotta vendetta against Bill Murray.

Lets face it. S.R. tanked finacially. WHat are studio execs to do. Are they going to make another Superman movie, and isn't that suicide? Fire the diretor and get Speilberg to do it...

Fcking Singer ruined Superman, man. Hard.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
/\
'-------- Somebody's gotta vendetta against Bill Murray. That's what I was thinking

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
3. Lois Lane and Routh are as flat as pancakes. There is no emotional depth to the characters at all. I guess the writers realized this when they were penning the script because, a la "Family Ties", "The Cosby Show", "Phantom Menace", or "Full House", they decided to hide their faltering story by turning Lois Lane's 5 year old kid into a major character. As expected, this was typical bait and switch. Bring out the kid everytime we need a tear. And, for extra effect, lets make him speech impaired and only utter things like "Mommy, will he get better? I want him to get better."
Get my gun.

4. Luthor's plan to destroy Superman starts off well--steal Kryptonian technology and use it to conquer the world and kill Superman--but leaves something to be desired in the execution. Luthor uses a crystal from the Fortress of Solitude to create a new continent--one based on the crystaline geology of Krypton. OK, so far. What now? Build some kick-ass Kryptonian weapons? Revive some long-dormant Kryptonian A.I. that runs amok? Build a suit of Kryptonian battle armor to give Supes a run for his money? None of the above. If you said, kick back, smoke a cigar and play a couple of hands of No-Limit Texas Hold-Em, you'd be more on the right track. Yawn...


I agree that they lacked serious emotional chemistry, but the kid wasn't put into the story because the writers thought they lacked it in the movie making process.. I don't know if you're BSing, or if you seriously believe that point.

I agree completely with point 4. Lex talks about having advanced alien technology.. but once the rock grows in the ocean, they just sit there and play cards... WTF?! That technology turned out to be as advanced as the "magic rocks" i used to grow in water when i was a kid...

I'm hoping that a lot of this will work out to be a great setup for the next movie - which i think it seriously could be. I mean hell, there's a new krypton now, and supes has a son! ... but, if singer brings back Zod and company for the next one, i'll shoot him myself..

dude shut up

Heh. That was a spot on review. The movie was horrible, imo.

dude shut up

Originally posted by MattDay
dude shut up

Tis true, my friend.

Up up and.....crash.

shut up again

PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!

Originally posted by MattDay
shut up again

Face it. The movie sucked.

shut up, u dont know what ur talking about

Originally posted by MattDay
shut up, u dont know what ur talking about

Suck. SuckSuckSuckSuckSuckSuckSuckSuckSuckSuckSuckSuck. Suck.





SUCK !

Originally posted by MattDay
shut up, u dont know what ur talking about

Hes saying the movie sucked.