Unfortunately, Superman Returns Is Just Super-Bad. Here's Why.

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..."

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.

Spoiler:
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. 😆 😂 😆

[QUOTE=6881930]Originally posted by Sr. Wendy
[B]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.