What's so BAD about Superman Returns!?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Dolos
LiHA8s7Y77c

RV6PQSC0gr8

Now you've heard his and my own side of the argument. What's yours?

the ninjak
It was boring. The only (action wise) scenes we got where the crims with the chaingun and him saving the plane.

The introduction of the son was old fashioned and tacky. Like the Mummy II or Indy 4.

And the old fashioned Lex Luthor and bimbo sidekick antics were unnecessary.
Bryan Singer was a wreck on set and tried too hard to slightly modernize the Reeves version of Superman movies.

But Superman Returns was supposed to be Supes returning from space after many years and marveling us with his abilities against opponents that would create a great spectacle. A movie that would evolve the series and make audiences look in wonder at the screen the same way the movies did in the 80's. The beginning of the film quotes Superman as being "Earth's greatest protector", this meant Supes had been fighting many threats throughout the years.

This film was meant to be a restart and all it did was sing the same old song.

Most people here a comic fans. And I would be shocked...if any DC comic fan said Superman Returns was a good movie.

Silent_Bomber
The film got a lot of positive critical reaction when it came out.

Admittedly I can't actually remember anything that happened in it though embarrasment , which is probably a bad sign wink

Maybe I'll re-watch it soon.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Dolos

you've heard his and my own side of the argument. What's yours?


I'm confused as to whether you are the person who made those YouTube videos or merely share his point of view.

Kudos if you ARE the person who made those YouTube videos, however -- they are very well done.




I actually wrote about seeing this movie years ago on another forum.
Caught it on TV, perhaps 15 minutes or so late. Enjoyed it with some Bergamot tea and a neighbor from China settling down to watch it with me a few moments later. I remember that neighbor asking me, having heard, strangely enough, of Supergirl being on TV that same year, whether that dark-haired girl being thrown around the plane was her! I must admit, they gave us a surprisingly athletic Lois Lane in that film. Seemed strangely appropriate to see her dive in the ocean and save Clark after that near-fatal kryptonite stabbing by Lex ...

Then I learned that the actress was the same young lady who had the starring role in Blue Crush as a champion teen surfer just a few years prior. PERFECT fit, that ... at least as far as Easter eggs and pure cinema action go.

Unfortunately it highlighted several problems for me, and I know from years on comic forums they bother other people, too, though few are particularly vocal about it:


1) The actors and actresses, the ones portraying Clark and Lois, especially Lois, are too young to convincingly portray people who have been in a 5 year relationship AND established themselves somewhat in the newspaper industry at that time.
Not in the world of Superman as he's been historically portrayed, at least. You need people who are visually late 20s or so to pull this stage of the story off. First year telling? They would have worked remarkably well for. Year six or seven? Not so much.

2) Kate Bosworth DOES bring to mind Supergirl. Which is a problem because, after DECADES now of seeing Superman rehash after Superman rehash, it's high time the mythos were expanded.
Where the hell IS Supergirl after all this time? Krypto? The JLA? What exactly is DC waiting on? A story set 6 YEARS after Superman became known to Metropolis and the world has none of these characters?
When are we going to see other superheroes make it to the big screen and interact WITH Superman?
I find it very telling that DC, owned by a MOVIE STUDIO (Warner Brothers) was beat to the market of multi-hero film by Marvel Comics with their Avengers film last year. How is it THEY have the courage and wisdom to realize superhero team films can work and DC doesn't?

3) Superman is a traditional hero with traditional small-town family values ingrained in him. Superman fathering an illegitimate child out of wedlock absolutely does not work, I don't care how modern you're trying to make him. That's not what he stands for.
Other less morally pure and more conflicted characters?
Surely.
But not Superman.
He becomes decidely less super when you try to falsely make him "relevant" to modern viewers that way.
That's not the kind of teaching he would have received from his parents, not what his world is about.

Dolos
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
1) The actors and actresses, the ones portraying Clark and Lois, especially Lois, are too young to convincingly portray people who have been in a 5 year relationship AND established themselves somewhat in the newspaper industry at that time.

You see this just didn't register or occur to me when watching it?



Again, their age didn't even compute or affect me during this film.



You lost me. Supergirl???



Oh what could have been. The only reason JLA didn't happen was precisely because no one accepted Superman Returns. His character was too overpowering, that's my core belief. The way he bedazzled Louis Lane like that. But that's why I've always liked Superman, he's overpowering. He's a someone important, someone I'd like to be, and someone I think every boy should strive to be when they become a man.



Well if they had accepted that God of a portrayal of Superman in 1978 (and Bradon Routhe's remarkable ability to mimic it) you would have gotten exactly what I think we all would have wanted.



Superman needs to be able to adapt to the changing times or he wouldn't strive. He'd be broken. For instance, him standing for the American way was never stated in that film. By becoming multicultural, I think he becomes more relatable to everyone everywhere.

Similarly, a big problem in America right now are these sort of family issues where the father is caught up in chaos. Divorce, the military, conventional marriage is in turmoil in this day and age. This is another reason I find the character relatable.



This is Superman, not Batman.

And I think Superman should be relatable, that is exactly what Snyder is striving for with MOS.

JakeTheBank
Well, my issues with the film were as follows:

1.) It felt more like an homage to the Christopher Reeve/Donner films instead of standing on its own.

2.) There was no real action in the film outside of Superman stopping some disasters. Sure, there was suspense and what not, but we could have seen Superman deal with a foe capable of challenging him on a physical level (he has plenty of them). Instead, we get Kevin Spacey playing Gene Hackman playing Lex Luthor.

3.) Christopher. I really couldn't get on board with this for a couple of reasons. One, for most interpretations of the character, Superman (and Kryptonians in general) are implied to be unable to breed with humans. Two, the idea of Lois and Superman sharing a secret love child while Lois is married to another man (a good man) while still being in love with Superman (and not knowing that he's Clark Kent) just seems way too deceptive and out of character for both Superman and Lois. Three, the subplot with Christopher itself didn't mesh with the overall movie.

4.) Messiah overtones were beat into us. Yes, I get that Superman in a lot of ways is sort of an amalgam of Jesus and Moses (heck, the word "El" translates into "god" in Hebrew), but while that is certainly one theme the character can represent, it's not the only theme, nor is it the most important one. Superman's biggest draw isn't the fact he's godlike in power or in status, but the fact that he's the most human hero of us all. He's under appreciated as Clark, often "friendzoned" by the woman he loves, and has to deal with paying the rent, taking care of his folks, and generally having to cope with the fact that he feels "out of place".

Superman Returns could have been a good movie and Brandon Routh could have grown into the role of the character like Christian Bale did with Batman, but too many missteps plagued the movie.

Dolos
I appreciate the feedback guys.

juggerman
Not enough boobies

Rao Kal El
I own this movie and I have watched like 3 times, but honestly, I think it lacks action and it focus more on Superman's boy scout character although a little bit ambiguous, because of his stalker scene and his intention of seducing a married woman.

I particularly hate this Luthor and his henchmen more than Gene's Luthor and that is saying a lot.

Only a few actions scenes and more of a soap opera than a comic movie.

And it feels more like an homage to Donner and Reeve films than a Superman movie IMO.

I do have all the 5 films and this one is not better than the 2nd film or the first one, I will actually believe this is probably even worse than the 4th fillm (maybe) but to me is

2nd
1st
4th
returns
3rd

The 3rd IMO is the worst.

That is basically my complain.

1.- Lack of action
2.- Too much soap opera drama
3.- More homage than Superman film
4.- Ambiguity with his boy scout character who tries to seduce a married woman and stalks her
5.- Cheesy Luthor (as usual)
6.- Cheesy Henchmen (as usual)

The only part I though it was cool as homage is when they quote Jor-El from the first movie and the Island lifting.

But that is my opinion.

Newjak
You know what I won't say Superman Returns was bad, but honestly it wasn't memorable to me nor is it a movie I want to add to my collection.

-Pr-
The first time I watched it in the cinema, I actually got a little annoyed about how bad it was.

The second time I went to the cinema to see it (i'd promised a friend i'd see it with her), I dozed off.

TheOneFirestorm
Originally posted by -Pr-
The first time I watched it in the cinema, I actually got a little annoyed about how bad it was.

The second time I went to the cinema to see it (i'd promised a friend i'd see it with her), I dozed off.

Do you think that was because of how unimpressive it was?

Why Superman Returns was so bad.



The movie seems more like a homage to Christopher Reeves Superman movies.
They made Superman a deadbeat dad, and he seems surprised he has a kid. Shows 0 respect for a super hero that is suppose to be virtuous.
I'm not saying Superman needs to be perfect but he is very close to it.
The S in the center is to small, the S on his belt unneccessary, he looks more like Superboy not Superman.
Bosewort was miscast as Lois Lane.
It must be bad writing that he has superhuman hearing unable to hear another beat from Lois's stomach but can hear multiple people multiple miles away.
Superman continues to pursue Lois Lane a married woman. That's something Wolverine, or the Sub Mariner would do pursue a taken woman not Superman. Also he is spying on Lois.
More bad writing so he can lift a rock full of kryptonite but becomes weak when Lex Luthor is holding a piece of kryptonite.
For the climax he lifts a rock that is pathetic.
There was something said about the action for why PG13 but there is more action in a JL episode than this disgraceful pathetic embarassment.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by the ninjak
It was boring.

-Pr-
Originally posted by TheOneFirestorm
Do you think that was because of how unimpressive it was?

Why Superman Returns was so bad.



The movie seems more like a homage to Christopher Reeves Superman movies.
They made Superman a deadbeat dad, and he seems surprised he has a kid. Shows 0 respect for a super hero that is suppose to be virtuous.
I'm not saying Superman needs to be perfect but he is very close to it.
The S in the center is to small, the S on his belt unneccessary, he looks more like Superboy not Superman.
Bosewort was miscast as Lois Lane.
It must be bad writing that he has superhuman hearing unable to hear another beat from Lois's stomach but can hear multiple people multiple miles away.
Superman continues to pursue Lois Lane a married woman. That's something Wolverine, or the Sub Mariner would do pursue a taken woman not Superman. Also he is spying on Lois.
More bad writing so he can lift a rock full of kryptonite but becomes weak when Lex Luthor is holding a piece of kryptonite.
For the climax he lifts a rock that is pathetic.
There was something said about the action for why PG13 but there is more action in a JL episode than this disgraceful pathetic embarassment.

It was just... Bad.

I mean, Singer wanted to do an homage to the Donner era. Great. The sad thing is, Superman 1 and 2 are superior movies by a long way (especially the Donner cut of 2).

Superman's characterisation is wrong.

The plothole about how Lois having Superman's kid is horrible.

James Marsden has helped ruin two franchises for me to the point that I can't watch movies with him in them.

Superman doesn't punch anyone. To some people that might not be a big deal, but it's his primary form of combat. Superman is supposed to be mighty. Yet this movie showed him stopping a couple of disasters which, as impressive as they were, just weren't cutting it.

One of the best things about Superman is that we get to see him beat up the bad guys while saving the world. Donner knew that, and yet Singer ****ed that right up, and to this day I'm still convinced that he's a horrible director when it comes to action on screen.

jedi90
Originally posted by -Pr-
It was just... Bad.

I mean, Singer wanted to do an homage to the Donner era. Great. The sad thing is, Superman 1 and 2 are superior movies by a long way (especially the Donner cut of 2).

Superman's characterisation is wrong.

The plothole about how Lois having Superman's kid is horrible.

James Marsden has helped ruin two franchises for me to the point that I can't watch movies with him in them.

Superman doesn't punch anyone. To some people that might not be a big deal, but it's his primary form of combat. Superman is supposed to be mighty. Yet this movie showed him stopping a couple of disasters which, as impressive as they were, just weren't cutting it.

One of the best things about Superman is that we get to see him beat up the bad guys while saving the world. Donner knew that, and yet Singer ****ed that right up, and to this day I'm still convinced that he's a horrible director when it comes to action on screen.

i'm suprised to hear you be so critical of a superman property.

jedi90
now, to answer the question of the OP.

like so many others have said, it was the mischaracterization of superman and the lack of action that killed the movie. the plot holes were secondary to me since they didn't initially stand out to me until i went home and thought about it.

issues
1.superman was portrayed as a stalker and possible home wrecker.
2. supes was a deadbeat dad that didnt' seem to mind if another man took care of his responsibilities.
3. the movie didn't really focus on his return or absence.
4. lex steals alien tech and the first thing he builds is a rock
5. lois doesn't question how she got pregnant by supes seeing how her memory was wiped before.
6. the guy clark replaced at the planet, did he really just die out of the blue....

the main problem is that singer doesn't understand masculinity and tries to relate the superhero genre to his "outcast" experiences.

Jim Colyer
Superman Returns made no impression. I saw it and remember nothing about it.

-Pr-
Originally posted by jedi90
i'm suprised to hear you be so critical of a superman property.

Theres plenty of superman stuff i dont like.

The Sorrow
One of the few "superhero" films that were better watching on dvd than on the big screen for me. I ended up leaving about 2 thirds of the way through the film when I saw it at the cinema and I've never done that before. Ultimately it just couldn't keep my attention for long enough, and I didn't particularly care for the actor nor his portrayal of Kal (funny enough I haven't seen Routh since this movie).

Also this:
Originally posted by JakeTheBank

Instead, we get Kevin Spacey playing Gene Hackman playing Lex Luthor.
This felt especially obvious watcing Returns, although Spacey was funny at times, he and his whiney, annoying side-chick pretty much ruined any sense of drama I felt between Superman and the villains. Decent enough film I guess but fell flat in a lot of areas.

Vensai
There weren't a lot of scenes that just jumped out at me. Regardless, I wouldn't worry about this movie too much since MoS is coming.

Eel O'Brien
For me, it was mainly the fact that it tried too hard. The Reeve/Donner Superman wasn't good because it was Reeve/Donner, but because it was just a good movie. Superman Returns tried so hard to be a Reeve/Donner film that it lost sight of trying to just be a good movie.

Also, Superman leaving his own illegitimate son behind to be raised by another man is just ick IMO...

BruceSkywalker
it was boring, bad acting, no action.. over use of lex luthor. wasn't written by chris nolan, or david goyer and supes had a son which was a major major mistake

Zack Fair
[email protected]'t written by nolan or goyer

BruceSkywalker
Originally posted by Zack Fair
[email protected]'t written by nolan or goyer


yep had to throw that dig in there

I-Drop
It was a weightlifting movie

Zack Fair
True that lol.

xJLxKing
-Lex as a Estate Genius
-Superman has a son. Seriously this is what made me hate the movie
-Superman gets beat up by random thus who don't finish the job obviously
-Kryptonite
-Oh did I mention, Kryptonite


I don't think the movie was horrible. I tried to look at it as a stand a lone. Not connecting to any other movie; sort of like a what if.

nimbus006
I agree with the original review. I just don't understand why Superman Returns gets so much hate. It's not perfect, but it's a good movie.

It's funny, I just saw Superman II last night and I have to say, I don't understand why it's so revered. It's really not a good movie at all. Atrocious FX aside (Obviously, I understand that's a product of the time), this movie is full of plot holes/PIS, bad dialogue, horrible characterization, and terribly choreographed fight scenes. Here are some of the problems I have with it:

1. How do Lois and Clark get back from the arctic so easily and quickly when they're both human?
2. Superman having to give up his powers to be with Lois = ridiculous PIS, imo.
3. When has Superman had the power to teleport and make copies of himself? I could be wrong, but I've never seen him do that in the comics.
4. While I love Gene Hackman, his Lex Luthor is completely out of character, in my opinion. He's way too cheesy/campy.
5. General Zod and Co are shallow and lazy characters. Their motivations are uninspired and unoriginal.
6. This is totally subjective, but I can't stand Lois Lane. I don't feel any connection or real emotion to/from her at all. I think she's a bad and over the top actress with an annoying voice.
7. Superman's power reversal scheme at the end is anti-climatic and silly.
8. Fight choreography is one of the worst I've seen. You don't need state of the art computer graphics to produce a good fight scene/battle.
9. The movie overall is HAMMY! I never really feel like Superman is in serious trouble, or that General Zod is a serious threat.

Let the stoning begin! stick out tongue

-Pr-
Which version did you watch?

nimbus006
Not the Donner cut. Maybe I should watch that. Is it completely different?

-Pr-
It's somewhat different.

"Different enough" is how I would put it.

nimbus006
Thanks.

I'm curious to know what your opinion of Superman II is?

Zack Fair
You didn't ask me, but Superman 2 is my favorite Superman movie so far.

It had character development, humor and the Man of Steel got to flex his muscles against the kryptonian trio.

nimbus006
Originally posted by Zack Fair
You didn't ask me, but Superman 2 is my favorite Superman movie so far.

It had character development, humor and the Man of Steel got to flex his muscles against the kryptonian trio.

Really? Have you seen it recently? lol

To each his own, I guess. stick out tongue

jedi90
Originally posted by nimbus006
Not the Donner cut. Maybe I should watch that. Is it completely different?

if you are into superman cinema history and how it could have been then buy it, otherwise it's worth a rent.

it's different and gives you a whole new set of plot holes to play with.

also in this version supes is a bit more selfish. nevermind the "hypnotic kiss", supes is willing to reverse the space/time continuum to manipulate others

Dr. Zaius
The following is a copy of the post I made immediately after seeing Superman Returns in 2006. Having further time to reflect upon my viewing, my opinion has not changed one iota. Unlike Man of Steel, which more or less fulfilled every single hope and expectation I had for a Superman movie, Singer's clumsy homage to Donner's 1978 film sucked--big time.

"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! Don't 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 campy performance, decided complete emasculation of Superman's nemesis was the next logical step. 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 every time 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 crystal-like 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 alleviate 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. Superman is basically unconscious for the last 30 minutes of the film. The title of this film is "Superman Returns", not "Superman Slumbers", isn't it?

7. Kryptonite again? Jesus.

8. 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", "flaccid", and "impotent" come to mind."

Zack Fair
Originally posted by nimbus006
Really? Have you seen it recently? lol

To each his own, I guess. stick out tongue Yes I have. I just happen to remember the time it was made. Of course it looks silly and corny by today standards, but I think it was great for the late 70s and early 80s.

jedi90
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius

8. 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", "flaccid", and "impotent" come to mind."

yeah, your statement pretty much sums up that movie to the tee. to all the devil wears prada fans, bryan singer salutes you.....

Golgo13
Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
it was boring, bad acting, no action.. over use of lex luthor. wasn't written by chris nolan, or david goyer and supes had a son which was a major major mistake

Goyer sucks. It's Jonathan Nolan that re writes his plots.

Mshinu
I didn`t doze off watching SR but came very close. Felt like one long 80s episode of the british soap Eastenders with Supes making cameo apperances and having the flu.

zeel
Superman returns was a good movie. Unfortunatly it was 15 years to late. Returns was a almost identical remake of the 1978 superman movie with Christopher reeves. Returns lacked a real villan and physical action, no one to challenge superman.


Lex is just retarded and has been overplayed.

SMIFF-N-WESSON
Originally posted by zeel
Superman returns was a good movie. Unfortunatly it was 15 years to late. Returns was a almost identical remake of the 1978 superman movie with Christopher reeves. Returns lacked a real villan and physical action, no one to challenge superman.


Lex is just retarded and has been overplayed.

There was good about that movie. nothing at all. what it lacked was a real director and a real story.

Plot: get back your old girlfriend whose married with your son.
climax: lifting an isle of Kryptanite.
fights: lost miserably.

what is to like about Returns?

Mindship
Just saw the airplane scene from Superman Returns. Say what you will about the movie, that scene is still one of the best goddamn moments in all of Superman filmdom.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Mindship
Just saw the airplane scene from Superman Returns. Say what you will about the movie, that scene is still one of the best goddamn moments in all of Superman filmdom.

It was a good scene but I wouldn't go that far. It was the highlight of that shitty movie though.

Mindship
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
It was the highlight of that shitty movie though. Indeed. I also like the gatling gun scene. I have both timed so that when I see Superman Returns in the program guide, I know exactly when to tune in just to see those parts.

The reason I am so enamored with the plane scene is because it's the first time movie goers (certainly myself) are seeing Superman portrayed in the way "he should have been" in the Reeve movies, had they the tech back then. It just gives me da chills.

super pr*xy
the plane scene was definitely a silver lining in that movie, if not the silver lining..

Jim Colyer
There's nothing memorable about Superman Returns.

Rewmac
It was dry as sand.

Vensai
Originally posted by Jim Colyer
There's nothing memorable about Superman Returns.
Pretty much this.

zeeshanaayan07
Most Welcome my friend

ChloePat
I'll say this for it, Brandon Routh was a great Superman, just in a boring movie.

Accurate tagline: 'Superman lifts a series of increasingly heavy objects: the Movie'



I don't know if I'd say that. When Lex is written well, he's one of the most fascinating villains in comics. That scene in All-Star Superman where Superman challenges Lex to do all the things he says he could have done if Supes hadn't been there is a great example of that.

Star428
Originally posted by the ninjak
It was boring. The only (action wise) scenes we got where the crims with the chaingun and him saving the plane.

The introduction of the son was old fashioned and tacky. Like the Mummy II or Indy 4.

And the old fashioned Lex Luthor and bimbo sidekick antics were unnecessary.
Bryan Singer was a wreck on set and tried too hard to slightly modernize the Reeves version of Superman movies.

But Superman Returns was supposed to be Supes returning from space after many years and marveling us with his abilities against opponents that would create a great spectacle. A movie that would evolve the series and make audiences look in wonder at the screen the same way the movies did in the 80's. The beginning of the film quotes Superman as being "Earth's greatest protector", this meant Supes had been fighting many threats throughout the years.

This film was meant to be a restart and all it did was sing the same old song.

Most people here a comic fans. And I would be shocked...if any DC comic fan said Superman Returns was a good movie.

I'm a DC comics fan and a BIG-TIME Superman fan and I loved the movie. smile

Star428
Originally posted by nimbus006
Really? Have you seen it recently? lol

To each his own, I guess. stick out tongue

It's my favorite as well. It certainly beats MOS.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.