Now you've heard his and my own side of the argument. What's yours?
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
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.
__________________
Last edited by the ninjak on Mar 27th, 2013 at 04:34 PM
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.
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.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Mar 31st, 2013 at 05:51 AM
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.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Gender: Male Location: The Fortress of Solitude in Venus
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.
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.
__________________ "Never stop fighting till the fight is done."
Elliot Ness from the Terrific Action Crime Drama Mob Movie The Untouchables
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.
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.
__________________
"I don't give them hell, I just tell them the truth and they think it's hell."
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:
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.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 26th, 2013 07:22 PM
, which is probably a bad sign 
