Originally posted by sithsaber408
Hmm...sounds good, sort of like what happend in Superman Returns, but including other heroes and Doomsday.
Also, what was the deal with John Stewart?
He's superman?
it wouldnt be anything like superman returns, trust me... 😛
john stewart = one of the green lanterns... intergalactic policeman, his beat just happens to be earths solar system...
Originally posted by sithsaber408Those films that could have been made show nothing. Only somebody looking reeeeeeealy hard for positives says that. "Could have been worse" doesn't really make things better. That's like giving this movie a thumbs up because it could have been as bad as Steel. Supes 1 & 2 really don't hold up to the test of time either. You do NOT want a film to fit in w/the Supes that flies around the earth and reverses time.
Agreed, people are just hating on Singer.I loved Returns, its fits perfectly in after Superman and Superman II.
I hear alot of trash talking, but nobody saying how they would have made a Superman movie, just the parts that they didn't like about this one.
As for those other films that almost got made, it just goes to show how good of a job Singer actually did, since this movie fits the style, theme, and ideas of the first two films.
Polar bears! Black suit! L 😂 L!!!
the movie sucked bad
i have been a superman fan for 30 years collected the comics saw all the movies,i even tied a towel around my neck when i was a kid,just to be superman,i am not going to give the movie a great review because its 2006 and every comic movie can perfect the special effects,its the reason i can live with the superman who turns back time by flying around the earth why? because the actors and story were excellent
i don't mind the same style lex as the previous movies,but another real estate gimmick,at least some super armor or weapons were needed
what about superman being a real lowlife,he knows lois is attached to another man(at the time he thinks the kid is lois fiancee) so what does he do? he tries to get between them and even spies on them in their home-thats superman heh don't think so,and whats this=lois 'oh i will just take my kid to investigate"? i went in to this movie with such high hopes i felt like a kid again,by 30 minutes in i felt like what i was-an idiot who got taken in by the movie makers,oh and i did tell my friends just how bad it was,but i told them to see it that they would be ok with it because the movie has great FX
all hail dr zauis for pointing out what a disappointment this movie was
Having finally seen this movie sometime back I KINDA agree with you.I also was dissapointed with this film but not for the reasons you were.I hated it mostly because Lois Lane was pregnant from him.That more than anything pissed me off.That was totally unnessary for them to put that in there. 😠 I of course did not like the movie either and said from the beginning it was totally unnessary to make a sequal since the first two films were so great and plus I did not like anybody else playing the role of Clark Kent/Superman other than Reeve.To me he is the one and only Superman just like Bill Bixby is the one and only Doctor Banner.However I didnt hate this movie to the extremes that you did.I have seen a lot worse comicbook movies made before such as the spiderman movies,the burton and schumacher batman movies,the hulk,ect.It wasnt near as bad as those.That being said,I disagree that it was terrible,not good and not great like superman one and two thats for sure.But like i said,compared to some other comicbook movies I have seen,it wasnt too bad.I would rank it as average myself. 😉
I might be a dollar short and a day late on my opinion here , but here it goes. First off Dr. Monkey man was dead on with his review and opinion. But to bash the phantom menace? that movie wasnt half as bad as superman returns. Plus its star wars , a whole other realm so i cant understand the comparison. I didnt know returns was a continuation of the old superman movies, that was probably the worst move right off the bat. This movie , simply , should have started with a clean slate. Ala Batman Begins, something appropriate and accurate to the comics. But not mind numbing and confusing for regular schmos. A true superman movie for 2006 , that could have been right up there with the other glory comic book movies of the times. The production of this movie could have found a real square jawed , respected actor to portray the real superman . Theres plenty of history and good resource in the comics, they could have made a good movie plot from any one of those issues. To go and dish out new actors , just to have them emulate the characters portrayal from those old superman movies is completly blahze.
This movie wasnt even about superman, its meerly about a guy that reminds viewers (not me) of christopher reeve , and to continue where he left off. Its common sense, im completly flabbergasted , how the hell did they f**k this up. They had the chance to press the restart button, its obvious brian singer is no nolan , all his talk of "doing my homework, knowing a thing or two about comics", is complete horse dung. For me, if I want to see superman in todays media, i look no further then smallville, at least that show got it some what right.
smallville got it nothing like the comics... still got his father for one... plus he never met lois lane til the big city, plus he's meeting other heroes... in the comics this was never mentioned... i think someone just dont think at all, just leave it at I didnt like it, because trying to justify a persons opinion doesnt work, but a fact does... and factually this film worked... not over the top like pirates of the crappean, but it done well enough to raise eyebrows... so whatever cry me a river if u want, something free for once.. and geek crying over his keyboard!
For you it may have worked , for myself i wasnt satisfied. In all honesty, im not even a superman fan that much. And as far as smallville goes. Ive only been tuning in to the 5th or 6th season , which ever it may be. I havnt really followed the show, but i like what ive seen so far. Because im not a die hard supeman fan , i wouldnt know whats canon . I know clark and louis relationship and introduction to one another is much different from the comics. And judgeing by the timeline and developments of the show . Superman would be superman now (with the costume and cape) his superboy days would have been over right? But im sure theres a forum for that so nvm.
Originally posted by MattDay
fair enough, the superman film was needed for the character because there are a lot of people who dont know/forgot what supermans origin was, so many incarnations now... lets wait for the sequel to put whats wrong right, and turn superman into the next big comic thing...again
i politley dont agree, if you took the superman logo and a crusifix and or any religious symbol,and went all over the world,superman would be just as reconized,i would bet if you went into the deepest parts of uncivilized nations and such superman would be more reconized,it is not like his origin was never shown in comics or movies or tv or dvd or vcr or cartoons,or the internet,this movie was basicly a desperate move by DC and co to get superman back into the big screen
BTW his origin had nothing to do with this movie ,it was what happened after it that the movie went wrong,it was only a tiny fraction of this bad movie,and was actually a good scene
well since this old dead thread has been brought back again I'll say it again,yeah superman returns was a totally unnessary movie to be made.It was stupid to make it because its not like its the same case with batman where batman begins was indeed very much neccessary to be made and an absolute must because all the other ones before it were crap and did not do the comic justice.superman on the other hand had two great movies already made that did the comic justice so superman returns was totally unnessary and should NOT have been made. 😠
Re: Unfortunately, Superman Returns Is Just Super-Bad. Here's Why.
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.
I disagree the movie was excellent so next time dont waste any time typing a whole essay to a movie that was exceptional.......PS Lois Lane is a ****
Re: Unfortunately, Superman Returns Is Just Super-Bad. Here's Why.
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.