What's Wrong With the Superman Movies

[Ring Slinger]

Why can't the world's first and greatest superhero get a fair shake in the film industry? In my mind, the Man of Steel should be shattering box office records like a certain webslinger, but the reception for Superman's latest big screen attempt was mixed-at-best, I would say.

I've thought about this a lot, and I think it comes down to one moment. In the original SUPERMAN, the scene where Superman reveals himself to the world by simultaneously saving Lois Lane and catching the falling helicopter is the absolute, definitive depiction of who Superman is and what he stands for. After that, everything else is anti-climactic. Unfortunately, the movie continues for another 2 hours. Then there were 3 sequels. Then SUPERMAN RETURNS (which does briefly blow on and slightly rekindle dying embers with its homage sequence with Superman saving the space shuttle and passenger plane). But since that moment when Christopher Reeve first opened his shirt and pulled off the glasses to save the day, everything else has paled in comparison for the cinematic Superman. Can he ever attain the glory he deserves?

[TimT]

No great stories yet. That's the real problem. Too much focus on the awe and feel of Superman not enough on just telling a great story. Plus, no great super-villains yet like in Spiderman or Batman. I do think Singer is a good director though and I like the rumors I'm hearing about either Metallo or Brainiac for the sequel to Superman Returns. Stay tuned!;)

[Ravenheart]

I love the Superman movies but they really need to lay off having Luthor in them all the time and bring in someone else.

[trickster]

Why can't the world's first and greatest superhero get a fair shake in the film industry? In my mind, the Man of Steel should be shattering box office records like a certain webslinger, but the reception for Superman's latest big screen attempt was mixed-at-best, I would say.

I've thought about this a lot, and I think it comes down to one moment. In the original SUPERMAN, the scene where Superman reveals himself to the world by simultaneously saving Lois Lane and catching the falling helicopter is the absolute, definitive depiction of who Superman is and what he stands for. After that, everything else is anti-climactic. Unfortunately, the movie continues for another 2 hours. Then there were 3 sequels. Then SUPERMAN RETURNS (which does briefly blow on and slightly rekindle dying embers with its homage sequence with Superman saving the space shuttle and passenger plane). But since that moment when Christopher Reeve first opened his shirt and pulled off the glasses to save the day, everything else has paled in comparison for the cinematic Superman. Can he ever attain the glory he deserves?

It was a great movie for its time. Nowadays anyone can fly on screen and look more spectacular than Superman doing it (or at least as much). Take the Human Torch in FF for instance. Plus, despite what some fanbois think, the world doesn't revolve around comics. "It's Superman? so what?" All this and the lack of good stories.

[NMoline]

It's pretty simple really... Superman never hits stuff. All he does is lift things use is heat vision x-ray vision super hearing. We never get to see a knock down dragout fist fight between Superman and say Doomsday or someone of that power level. Imagine a superman movie where they were throwing full power punches and knocking each other through buildings etc..

Also, the threats that we see in the movies, and I am really only referring to the original and the new one, are pretty petty for Superman to have to undertake. It is not a supervillain he is fighting but Lex Luthor who is just a really smart man. Now if Luthor teamed up with Braniac, Doomsday, Lobo, Grundy, or Grodd, it may be much more interesting. Spider-man got it correct by using super villains in its movies.

[Buried Alien]

I think the original premise of this thread is somewhat flawed. The first two SUPERMAN movies performed excellently (although not record-shattering) at the box office. SUPERMAN III and SUPERMAN IV did badly in ticket sales because they were not good movies, and SUPERMAN RETURNS was not what the public expected.

The runaway success of the SPIDER-MAN films is actually more of a mystery. Yes, the first two, at least, were excellent movies...but necessarily *better* than the first two SUPERMAN movies (other than special effects, obviously)? I wouldn't say so.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Ring Slinger]

I think the original premise of this thread is somewhat flawed. The first two SUPERMAN movies performed excellently (although not record-shattering) at the box office. SUPERMAN III and SUPERMAN IV did badly in ticket sales because they were not good movies, and SUPERMAN RETURNS was not what the public expected.

The runaway success of the SPIDER-MAN films is actually more of a mystery. Yes, the first two, at least, were excellent movies...but necessarily *better* than the first two SUPERMAN movies (other than special effects, obviously)? I wouldn't say so.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Thanks, Buried-- I always enjoy your wisdom. Perhaps the real question is why can't a Superman movie today preform like a Spider-Man movie? I've heard a lot about bad stories, lack of an interesting villain, or too much time spent on the love story, but I stand by what I said before-- cinematic Superman peaked in his saving Lois and the helicopter scene in SUPERMAN and everything else has been downhill from there.

The questions still, though, is why? Is it because we cannot be surprised by Superman anymore? Or is Superman, like many critics assert, so powerful, so amazing, and so good that audiences cannot identify with him and he is then, therefore, boring?

[BYC]

I actually think Reeve's performance has overshadowed everything that came afterwards. Even to this day, when people think of Superman, they look to Reeve. It's a big hurdle to cross.

I think people want to see far too much action in the superhero genre. They want the action without the drama or development. Of all the big hits I've seen in the last decade or whatever, I find people in the threater laugh, mock, and openly comment on most dramatic scenes in summer blockbusters. It happened in 300, all the X-Mens, all the Spider-Mans, Star Wars, etc.. Movies being what they are, people really want to see the ridiculous things and leave the development parts to other media. It's a huge flaw in the action/superhero genre that is hard to overcome.

[Ryan K]

People were hungry for live-action Spider-Man.

In the time between Superman IV and Superman Returns, we had 100 episodes of Superboy, 88 episodes of Lois and Clark, and 110 episodes of Smallville. Not to mention 13 Ruby-Spears Superman cartoons, 54 episodes of Superman The Animated Series, and 91 episodes of Justice League/Justice League Unlimited.

I'm sure many people just weren't very hungry for a Superman movie. Or many may have had a 'why pay for what's free on TV' line of thought.

[Black Atom]

Why can't the world's first and greatest superhero get a fair shake in the film industry? In my mind, the Man of Steel should be shattering box office records like a certain webslinger, but the reception for Superman's latest big screen attempt was mixed-at-best, I would say.


This has nothing to do with ay failings of the character and everything to do with the way SUPERMAN RETURNS was executed.

The Spider-Man films have a lot going for them. They're fun, funny, romantic and relatable coming-of-age stories, with excellent drama and creative and well-executed actions scenes.

SUPERMAN RETURNS, on the other hand, was rarely funny, rarely fun and not romantic. It's almost like they set out specifically and aggressively to avoid those elements and that's what people were looking for. It was a mistake to attempt to restart the franchise on such a down-note and it sucked any enthusiasm we might've had for Superman's big return to the silver screen. This, more than any other singular element, I feel, is why SUPERMAN RETURNS didn't perform better. A well-executed Superman movie should appeal not only to children, but to the children in each of us and RETURNS fails to do that.

[scottv]

I also think that the problem is that Luther is tied into them way too much. I understand that he is Superman's archenemy but there are others that could really challenge Superman. It is a little unbelievable that Luther can hurt Superman that bad using pretty much the same tricks.

[Adamantium_Avatar]

The issues lies with two disparate worlds..

No, I am not talking Earth 1 and Earth 2!

I am talking about the big wide horrible world out there and our little safe cuddly warm fan-boy world.

While we practically orgasm as Superman says 'Up, Up and Away' or the Human Torch says 'Flame On' or even the briefest glimpse at the Silver Surfer, the rest of the planet just doesn't really see what the fuss is all about.

Unfortunately for the true believers (can I use that on the DC boards?) Holywood is not trying to cater for those fan-boys not suprisingly, as the rest of the world (the 'masses') outnumber us.

It is because of this that the films that are produced tend to be dissatisfying for those of us who truly know these characters inside and out.

I honestly think this is a terrible error on the part of the film makers. As your average 'masses' doesnt know whether Superman has high-heeled boots or not (nor does he care) and in that respect I believe that the film-makers should actually cater for US.

This would give the films a hardcore fan-boy-base, thankful for the film portraying everything they have ever wanted to see (within reason, some of you guys are just too weird) and also the 'masses' would go and see it anyway as they wouldnt know any different.

No-one loses any money and it keeps us happy..

That's probably far too simple though... sigh

[ComicGeek]

I love the Superman movies but they really need to lay off having Luthor in them all the time and bring in someone else.

I have to agree with this 100%, Superman has so many other great enemies that using Luthor all the time kinda makes the movies pull up lame. You have to give credit where credit is due, and Luthor is his most deadly enemy, but we are officially in baldy-overload now.

And why are they making "Superman Doomsday" as an animated feature? With today's special effects, they could easily make Doomsday for live action. What kinda cliffhanger would a funeral for Superman be. Imagine the buildup to the next movie and all the internet buzz for how they would manage to bring Supes back to life for the big screen.

And if not Doomsday, how about Metallo, how about a new Phantom Zone, and a Zod without a pornstar beard. Ultra-Humanite, Bizarro, Mr. Mxyzptlk? So much wasted potential, because they want another movie with Luthor in it.

[NMoline]

There seems to be a consensus that a new Superman movie would need a new villain. So let's try and decide which villain would look the best on the Silver Screen and would make for the best story.

I think an intelligent Grundy as we have seen in the newest JLA series would make for a great villain, heck I would like multiple villains maybe a Grundy Braniac team-up. A guy can dream can't he?

[ComicGeek]

I would like to see Metallo, the sfx could be amazing. However, having said that, I am afraid they will use Brainiac and just slap green face paint on some an have them talk in an evil voice.

[Black Atom]

The issues lies with two disparate worlds..

No, I am not talking Earth 1 and Earth 2!

I am talking about the big wide horrible world out there and our little safe cuddly warm fan-boy world.

While we practically orgasm as Superman says 'Up, Up and Away' or the Human Torch says 'Flame On' or even the briefest glimpse at the Silver Surfer, the rest of the planet just doesn't really see what the fuss is all about.

Unfortunately for the true believers (can I use that on the DC boards?) Holywood is not trying to cater for those fan-boys not suprisingly, as the rest of the world (the 'masses') outnumber us.

It is because of this that the films that are produced tend to be dissatisfying for those of us who truly know these characters inside and out.

I honestly think this is a terrible error on the part of the film makers. As your average 'masses' doesnt know whether Superman has high-heeled boots or not (nor does he care) and in that respect I believe that the film-makers should actually cater for US.

This would give the films a hardcore fan-boy-base, thankful for the film portraying everything they have ever wanted to see (within reason, some of you guys are just too weird) and also the 'masses' would go and see it anyway as they wouldnt know any different.

No-one loses any money and it keeps us happy..

That's probably far too simple though... sigh

Well, Superman is so universally beloved, I don't think you really have to split hairs, too much. If you screw up Superman's costume or make Superman a blonde guy, everyone's gonna notice, not just the "fanboys". It shouldn't be that hard to appease everyone.

[dupersuper]

People were hungry for live-action Spider-Man.

In the time between Superman IV and Superman Returns, we had 100 episodes of Superboy, 88 episodes of Lois and Clark, and 110 episodes of Smallville. Not to mention 13 Ruby-Spears Superman cartoons, 54 episodes of Superman The Animated Series, and 91 episodes of Justice League/Justice League Unlimited.

I'm sure many people just weren't very hungry for a Superman movie. Or many may have had a 'why pay for what's free on TV' line of thought.

Quoted for truth. Whenever a new Superman show/movie/whatever starts, you always here about it being a return. Return from where?? He's never been off-screen for more than a few years; in addition to almost 7 decades of continuous comics, plus novels, pop-culture/song references, at least 1 video game on every console since 1980, a radio show, movie serials, movies, cartoons, tv shows...

[Adamantium_Avatar]

Well, Superman is so universally beloved, I don't think you really have to split hairs, too much. If you screw up Superman's costume or make Superman a blonde guy, everyone's gonna notice, not just the "fanboys". It shouldn't be that hard to appease everyone.

WAS universally beloved.. Now only beloved by those of us who read comics and children under the age of six..

[caboose]

I think one of the biggest problems with Superman Returns was that Superman treated his powers like a burden. And it seems to be a continuing trend in comic book films.

Now theres nothing wrong with feeling like your powers are a burden I mean Spider-Man is basically based on that concept, but in the three Spider-Man films you at least saw Peter Parker enjoying his powers at times. With the earlier Reeves films, there were moments where Superman at least looked like he was having fun at times, but in Superman Returns where was the joy?

If you check out You Tube someone has posted a clip of the plane sequence from Superman Returns and have added Queen's "Don't Stop Me Now", which in my opinion makes the scene come alive. I'm sure there will be purists who hate the idea of Superman having a good time. But Superman isn't a Marvel character, he's a god. He should be able to laugh at some of the things he is capable of. Not break into his ex-girlfriends house to talk to his bastrad love child while the kids asleep.

[Ring Slinger]

But Superman isn't a Marvel character, he's a god. He should be able to laugh at some of the things he is capable of. Not break into his ex-girlfriends house to talk to his bastrad love child while the kids asleep.

Amen! I'm glad someone said it!

[The Batman]

^^^

But if Superman didn't make an effort to see Jason he'd actually be the deadbeat dad that so many people wrongfully claim he is.

As for the problem with the Superman movies - I'm assuming that we're really only talking about Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace since they're the ones that have real fundamental problems - I think it's the same thing that happens with alot of movies. People are put in charge that are less interested in telling a good story than they are in the bottom line.

[Binker]

Yup, it is here also that I have to put my threads about Superman Returns.

[jesse_custer]

The main problem with the Superman movies--and a lot of Superman stories in general--is that Supes is just a static character. Audiences get bored with that. Whereas Spidey is very human and ever-changing, which we can thank Stan Lee for.

But seriously, you can make Supes an interesting character, rather than just a cool myth. Look at what Alan Moore did in Superman Annual #11. He showed that Superman has fantasies like everyone else, and he also showed Supes being a pissed off badass. That's what the Superman movies should do. Give us a slightly different take on the Man of Steel, while retaining his mythology.

[BYC]

I think one of the biggest problems with Superman Returns was that Superman treated his powers like a burden. And it seems to be a continuing trend in comic book films.

Now theres nothing wrong with feeling like your powers are a burden I mean Spider-Man is basically based on that concept, but in the three Spider-Man films you at least saw Peter Parker enjoying his powers at times. With the earlier Reeves films, there were moments where Superman at least looked like he was having fun at times, but in Superman Returns where was the joy?

If you check out You Tube someone has posted a clip of the plane sequence from Superman Returns and have added Queen's "Don't Stop Me Now", which in my opinion makes the scene come alive. I'm sure there will be purists who hate the idea of Superman having a good time. But Superman isn't a Marvel character, he's a god. He should be able to laugh at some of the things he is capable of. Not break into his ex-girlfriends house to talk to his bastrad love child while the kids asleep.
When he raised his eyebrow after getting shot in the eye by the bank robber.

[niall mc cann]

When he raised his eyebrow after getting shot in the eye by the bank robber.

That was a cool moment. It was like he was just saying "Seriously, dude... did you think that was gonna work?"

There's a couple things people have brought up that i have to mention; first of all, the old Chris Reeves Superman movies - the first two at least - are as universally beloved as any films i've known. Almost everyone i know of my age loves them. We grew up on them. I can honestly say that i cannot offhand think of anyone telling me that they don't like them. And frankly, they deserve that status, 'cause they're brilliant. I'm even maybe the one guy out there who can watch Superman III. It's not necessarilly a great film, but its a film with occasional great moments.

Secondly, Lex Luthor - i don't know any non-comic reader complaining about his presence. On the contrary, most superman fans i know (non-comic reading, my mother among them) seem to consider him as vital a part of the mythos as Lois. I absolutely agree that a new villain is needed, the last great Superman movie villain (apart from Luthor) was Zod, and that was a quarter century ago. I'm holding out for the Brainiac/Luthor team.

Finally, the reason the new film didn't set anyone's world alight, i believe, is that while it had many admirable qualities and i liked it well enough, it just didn't capture the exciting up-up-and-away quality of Superman. It was at best introspective and brooding, at worst naval-gazing. Superman should be fun and inspiring, that's what people expect and its what people love! And they do love the character. How many two-decade old films get a brand new director's cut released all over the world on DVD?

That didn't happen 'cause the studio thought it was an obscure film of interest only to fanboys. People love Superman, and there is an appetite to see him done right.

[Lord_Archive]

Superman Returns was more of an homage film than a restart.

It follows the same basic plotline of the 1978 film:

Superman starts out coming out of nowhere, stays on the Kent farm for a bit, then has a tearful goodbye with his mother. Then Superman goes to Metropolis to act out his total dork secret identity of Clark Kent and saves Lois from an accident involving an aircraft. Meanwhile Lex Luthor is busy scheming a major land grab that will kill millions of people in the process. A little later on in the film Lex outwits a classically dumb Superman and brings him into the presence of Kryptonite which Superman can not escape without the help of another person by jumping into the water to save him. Superman then saves the day using an incredible feat of superpower while simultaneously tossing aside what occurred previously in the story.

And during this whole mess, Singer still manages to make Superman into a complete and total stalker and introduces an annoying little superkid which serves only to cripple the story.

Singer's problem was that he was too much of a fan of the Christopher Reeves films to do anything really special with the Stalkerman Returns film. Also the films rely far too much on Lex Luthor, but I believe that's been covered already.

[dockwats]

The main problems with movies, especially Superman Returns, are generally three-fold in my opinion.

1. Ability of Audience To Relate

One of the problems with SR involved the setting/tone of movie along with lack of character personalities (too stiff). SR was pure eye-candy and beautiful in execution. The characters looked like they were plucked right out of the idealized Hollywood of yore. And that was the exact problem. The audience could relate to neither the set nor the "masses" in the movie. The set wasn't real enough to current life and the characters came off as a bit too "distant" and dreamy, all the way down to the everyday people in the movie. Contrast this with characters/set used in recent Spiderman/X-men movies.

Things like "no-name" characters having personality (Spiderman was great with this), making a set not look like a set (every shot of Metropolis looked like part of a stage-play) and even giving the characters a bit less of a "glow" when on screen can go a long way.

A bit of vivid realism, even in an action-packed fantasy flick, goes a long way to making the audience feel involved.

2. Non-Boring Villains

Two, Superman needs a better adversary than Kryptonite Island. Heck, he needs a better villain than Lex's two missiles being shot in opposite directions in the first film. I discount Superman 3 and 4 as movies. ;)

If Lex must continually be involved, he needs to be amped up into creating relevant threats that actually have deep, memorable personality (to add depth) and provide a physical challenge to Supes (provide action). This implies that Lex is always involved in unleasing/creating a LIVING threat. Let him make a Bizarro, let him find a way to free some vile thugs from the Phantom Zone. Lex can be smart too, let him play devious and calculating mind games with Supes. Those are all things that could make the movies richer. Personally, I think they need to pull in tougher rogues, and if Lex is used, tack him on as an "extra" to the threats (like Zod/Ursa/Non teaming up with Lex).

People also like big fight scenes. When you get a villain, make it a Villain! This is flippin' Superman! Make them fight in Space! Let him duke it out with a baddie to the Sun and back if needed. With so much potential, it's wasted having him do things like catching missiles, being a peeping tom, or lifting big hunks of land as FINAL FIGHTS. No good. Also, for the light-hearted relief, writers need to have him use his powers creatively and carefully when out and about with colleagues, for instance...

Have Clark grabbing a hot-dog with Jimmy, an old man stumbles into the street in front of a bus -he doesn't need the full costume- have him cleverly plot something to save the guy without anyone noticing. It'll take away the boring *sigh*aspect of him just flying in as Supes to do mundane saving work throughout an entire movie until the final fight. There have been glimpses of this in the movies, but something that'd make a fun, rolling theme for future films. Let's see how clever and with what subtlety his powers can be used in day to day life.

Clark is also a smart one too. Involve a bit more mystery, detective work with Lois (who is also bright). It gives characters more depth, interaction as well as a story to unravel (instead of necessarily having solely punching/saving going on).

3. SuperKid

This one is exclusive to the most recent release, but really, I don't think it's a good direction or gives good implication to the franchise. A different direction should have been taken to give Superman a more human, emotional side. Having the character be less wooden in script, for one, would be a good starting point. So unless Jason is actually going to be used in some convoluted plot (not Supes kid but actually created by Braniac :rolleyes: ) not so much a selling point for me. It could be only my circle of colleagues, but most people I know were really down with this entire idea. I suppose a new franchise and product line could be launched from the idea, but overall I think it devalues the original mythos too much.

[Pirate King Liz]

If Luthor must be involved, give him a big robot or something for Superman to fight.

[Paul Dee]

Have Clark grabbing a hot-dog with Jimmy, an old man stumbles into the street in front of a bus -he doesn't need the full costume- have him cleverly plot something to save the guy without anyone noticing. It'll take away the boring *sigh*aspect of him just flying in as Supes to do mundane saving work throughout an entire movie until the final fight. There have been glimpses of this in the movies, but something that'd make a fun, rolling theme for future films. Let's see how clever and with what subtlety his powers can be used in day to day life.

Yeah, it was good to see a scene like this in the Richard Donner version of Superman II.


Superman starts out coming out of nowhere, stays on the Kent farm for a bit, then has a tearful goodbye with his mother. Then Superman goes to Metropolis to act out his total dork secret identity of Clark Kent and saves Lois from an accident involving an aircraft. Meanwhile Lex Luthor is busy scheming a major land grab that will kill millions of people in the process. A little later on in the film Lex outwits a classically dumb Superman and brings him into the presence of Kryptonite which Superman can not escape without the help of another person by jumping into the water to save him. Superman then saves the day using an incredible feat of superpower while simultaneously tossing aside what occurred previously in the story.


The bolded bit had never occured to me before! When you summarise the 2 movies like that they really do follow similar plots. I'd only really thought of Lex's land scheme/saving Lois in the air before.

[MythicBrawn]

I think another issue was the need to continue the Christopher Reeve legacy of Superman. CR was a good Superman but where is it written that any subsequent movie about Superman has to be a homage to him? Brandon Routh resembled CR a number of times, LL's motivations were still the same, etc. The timing for Lois having a kid made no sense. Her character is shown in a poor light because of the timing of the kid and her starting a r-ship with the new guy. Superman Returns needed to do a complete restart similar to Batman Begins. Batman Begins made Ra's pretty interesting. How many non-Batman fans know who Ra's Al Ghul is? They easily could have went with Joker but didn't. The franchise has been restarted and they will reap the benefits. Superman on the other hand still has all this baggage since they decided to "continue" the story from Superman 2. Singer says that he plans to go all Star Trek 2 on the next Superman. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Aegis Armor]

We need a new villain.

I like Lex, but I think the world is suffering from Luthor overload.

I say we go with Darkseid. Darkseid is evil enough to allow Superman's heroic light to shine brightly; he is cunning enough to put Superman in a bind; and powerful enough to blow the special effects budget in a final battle with the Man of Steel - which, incidentally, has been missing in all of the Superman films.


Aegis Armor

[Pirate King Liz]

Good lord, imagine the budget they'd need for Darkseid...

It was huge even with just Luthor.

[BYC]

I think, in the end, that Christopher Reeve's Superman is something none of us can get past. He was just perfect. Until the public can forget, I don't think the franchise can grow.

On the other hand, it shows that Superman's maskless face is so important that people can't forget it, and we still are in awe of it.

[SensorBoy]

I'd like to see (ideally):

1.) Reboot. Don't have to spend 180 minutes retelling Clark's nativity and youth (leaving the farm, etc), but ditch the S:I-Returns backstory, as Batman Begins did (S:Returns may have damaged the franchise in a similar way that B&R damaged the Batman movie series). Just have Superman already established as the Metropolis Marvel, and proceed from there to tell a story.

2.) Don't have Superman be the only major Hero operating in the World. You don't even have to show the others on-screen, but acknowledge that they exist. One of the interesting aspects of the Superman Mythos is his primus inter pares relationship with the other Capes.

3.) No "Son of Superman". Don't even hint at it. Singer was (IMO) waaaay off on this one.

4.) In reference to #2, Superman has a lot of friends and allies. None of them (except for the core Lois-Jimmy team) have ever been in the movies. 5 minutes of well filmed screentime involving Batman (or Ollie, or Wally, or etc) could turn a good film into a very very good film.
I know that the drive to establish film franchises works against this, but a good guest-star appearance by Hero "X" is a good way to generate a spin-off.
If they don't do this, a Justice League of America movie would consist of Fire, Ice, the Blue Beetle and Elongating Man. Translation: everyone who can't support their own individual franchise. Spare characters.

5.) It would be nice if Superman actually had a fight. S:R was pretty weak in that regard.

6.) As someone else pointed out, Lex is overused. Bench him for a couple of Quarters. Doomsday is not really a suitable movie villain, though. Brainiac, the Society, Vandal Savage or another A-Lister would be better.

7.) To Hell with all of you. I want a Billy Batson cameo.

[Lord_Archive]

Don't forget Lois Lane. A true moron if there ever was one. Not only did she walk into a potentially dangerous situation without any forethought, but in this latest travesty of a film, she brought her freakin' kid along with her.

I think its time someone called social services on this broad.

[karasu]

Too much Jesus, not enough Superman.
Crap villains.
Bad action.
Questionable Actors/directors.

[Buried Alien]

(S:Returns may have damaged the franchise in a similar way that B&R damaged the Batman movie series).

No, not nearly. SUPERMAN RETURNS was still a basically good film with some flaws. BATMAN & ROBIN was just a bad joke from start to finish.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[SensorBoy]

No, not nearly. SUPERMAN RETURNS was still a basically good film with some flaws. BATMAN & ROBIN was just a bad joke from start to finish.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Agreed, it was a decently-written story.

Just not a decent Superman story.

The problem is that those "flaws" are now major plotlines (5 year absence, married Lois, mommy Lois, Superman Jr, etc), and cannot plausibly be zeroed out without rebooting and/or ignoring them.

Likewise, B&R, besides just being a crap movie, firmly established the over-the-top campiness within the series, making it impossible to follow up with a return to the Keaton-era semi-serious darkness. Which they would have to do, since the audience had grown tired of the campiness. Hence the 8-year hiatus and the reboot.

With S:R, I think quite a bit of the problem came from trying to make the movie exist in the shadow of the first two Reeve movies. Choosing to do that severely limited Singer's options.

They should have rebooted the franchise, and that's what -I- would like to see happen in the next movie.

[Paul Dee]

Likewise, B&R, besides just being a crap movie, firmly established the over-the-top campiness within the series, making it impossible to follow up with a return to the Keaton-era semi-serious darkness. Which they would have to do, since the audience had grown tired of the campiness. Hence the 8-year hiatus and the reboot.

I disagree with this. If the franchise was able to go from the gothic and dark Burton movies to the camp-as-tits Schumacher ones I don't see why it wouldn't be able to go back to being dark and serious again. The continuity of the Batman movies was dreadful anyway so it couldn't have gotten any worse. The reason Schumacher's proposed sequel to Batman and Robin didn't get made wasn't because people were tired of camp Batman (the script for Batman Triumphant was intended to take him back to his dark roots) but purely because the studio didn't want to risk another Batman movie failing in the way that B&R did.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Thanks, Buried-- I always enjoy your wisdom. Perhaps the real question is why can't a Superman movie today preform like a Spider-Man movie? I've heard a lot about bad stories, lack of an interesting villain, or too much time spent on the love story, but I stand by what I said before-- cinematic Superman peaked in his saving Lois and the helicopter scene in SUPERMAN and everything else has been downhill from there.

The questions still, though, is why? Is it because we cannot be surprised by Superman anymore? Or is Superman, like many critics assert, so powerful, so amazing, and so good that audiences cannot identify with him and he is then, therefore, boring?

I pretty much think that it's not that the movies are bad (except for Superman IV. Hell, even Superman III was enjoyable), but people don't get the character.

Is it really, REALLY necessary to see Superman hitting something in order to say the movie is good? I don't think so. It's more about people understanding who Superman is. We've seen Superman comics being critically acclaimed, in which Superman doesn't throw a single punch.

And what is it with people trying to identify with Big Blue? It is obvious that Superman is well beyond what humans can ever aspire to be. His selflessness and humility is something we -to put it simply- will never be able to reach. We're plagued with hatred, violence, envy and whatnot. Superman is above such feelings, although he can feel anger, love and sorrow.

And that goes without mentioning the immense, god-like power he wields.

IMHO, Superman Returns kicked MAJOR ass, and I loved every single second of the movie.

[Paul Dee]

I pretty much think that it's not that the movies are bad (except for Superman IV. Hell, even Superman III was enjoyable), but people don't get the character.

Is it really, REALLY necessary to see Superman hitting something in order to say the movie is good? I don't think so. It's more about people understanding who Superman is. We've seen Superman comics being critically acclaimed, in which Superman doesn't throw a single punch.

Well, yeah but a Superman movie implies some sense of action doesn't it? It's an event. A comic can get away with havng a reflective Superman because the comics are a monthly thing (twice-monthly in fact). The movies come around once every..god knows how long...so they have to cut to the chase and feature action as well as all the other things you'd expect. The comics have the luxury of not having to satisfy a mass (perhaps non-Superman-loving) audience in one sitting so they can experiment more. The movies are a whole different matter.

[SensorBoy]

Having already stated my list of (IMO) the movie's failures, I will now complement it:

The 777 rescue scene was the best superhero scene yet filmed.

Everything from not being able to get a good grip (Superman has super-strength, but the wingroots don't...), to plowing through the second wing when it gets torn off, to the landing scene (nosecone crumples until it hits the fuselage frame).

-That- will be the standard for all high-concept Cape movies to follow.

[drupgyu]

All Superman Returns had to do was not have the kid in it....That's all. Everything else was fine. You take the kid out and you could even have Lois married and it wouldn't have mattered. Quickie divorce and bang! you're off to the races.

And let's be honest, the only villain that should be in a Superman film ASIDE from Lex and Zod is BRAINIAC.

[The Batman]

^^^^

That's why the kid was there. So that they couldn't just solve the Lois problem in five mintues.

There's also the idea that was sort of touched upon in Superman 2 that Superman can't be with Lois so long as he's Superman so what we saw in Returns might've been a way of giving Lois something of a happy ending for now. Who knows, besides Singer, Harris, and Dougherty of course, what they've got planned though?

I know though that I'm really excited to find out.

[PatrickG]

The problem is that those "flaws" are now major plotlines (5 year absence, married Lois, mommy Lois, Superman Jr, etc), and cannot plausibly be zeroed out without rebooting and/or ignoring them.


Superman will have been BACK for 3-5 years when the sequel comes out and his absence happened right after his debut in the films.

Lois is NOT married.

Who says they have to focus on the kid or Lois being a mom? I figure we're due for one movie of that. In fact, I'd say NOT doing a movie with that would be a copout, as would any reboot.

But it doesn't mean the kid has to stick around... And no, you don't have to kill him or retcon him to accomplish that.

[Citizen V]

I think the original premise of this thread is somewhat flawed. The first two SUPERMAN movies performed excellently (although not record-shattering) at the box office. SUPERMAN III and SUPERMAN IV did badly in ticket sales because they were not good movies, and SUPERMAN RETURNS was not what the public expected.

The runaway success of the SPIDER-MAN films is actually more of a mystery. Yes, the first two, at least, were excellent movies...but necessarily *better* than the first two SUPERMAN movies (other than special effects, obviously)? I wouldn't say so.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

I think the poster ment Superman Returns.The first and second Superman films made in the 1970`s were excellent,films for the ages.Its just that non-Superman fans,or younger fans might not know anything else besides Superman Returns.I pity them,since SR was a dissapointment..hence this thread.

[karasu]

Having already stated my list of (IMO) the movie's failures, I will now complement it:

The 777 rescue scene was the best superhero scene yet filmed.

Everything from not being able to get a good grip (Superman has super-strength, but the wingroots don't...), to plowing through the second wing when it gets torn off, to the landing scene (nosecone crumples until it hits the fuselage frame).

-That- will be the standard for all high-concept Cape movies to follow.


I thought this was done much better in Superman: The Animated Series. The CG was so jarring in Superman Returns, and Lois should have been seriously hurt after flying around the cabin like that.

[uatu13]

I think the main problem with the Superman movies is that so far they've all been REALLY SILLY! Let's see, we have the world's greatest criminal, who's able to outsmart even Superman, but he surrounds himself with a bimbo and a stumbling idiot to complete his world conquering schemes? What is this, the 50's or something? Why not throw in Beppo the supermonkey and Zippy the supercat and get it over with?

Not only this, but pretty much every movie has focused on Luthor, who really isn't interesting enough to be the villain in every movie. I know Superman's pantheon isn't that great, but couldn't they have thrown us a braniac, metallo, or something by now?

Most of the comic movies have been interesting because they take the material seriously (well, except for Batman and Robin of course), but I don't ever feel like any of the Superman movies are supposed to be set in the "real world". They still feel like the old-timey campy 50's superman (spinning the earth in reverse to change time, etc).

[niall mc cann]

I think the main problem with the Superman movies is that so far they've all been REALLY SILLY! Let's see, we have the world's greatest criminal, who's able to outsmart even Superman, but he surrounds himself with a bimbo and a stumbling idiot to complete his world conquering schemes? What is this, the 50's or something? Why not throw in Beppo the supermonkey and Zippy the supercat and get it over with?

Not only this, but pretty much every movie has focused on Luthor, who really isn't interesting enough to be the villain in every movie. I know Superman's pantheon isn't that great, but couldn't they have thrown us a braniac, metallo, or something by now?

Most of the comic movies have been interesting because they take the material seriously (well, except for Batman and Robin of course), but I don't ever feel like any of the Superman movies are supposed to be set in the "real world". They still feel like the old-timey campy 50's superman (spinning the earth in reverse to change time, etc).

I always felt there was real earnestness to the 70s and 80s Superman films. It felt to me like they took the idea of Superman really seriously.

Also, for me, Terence Stamp's Zod is one of the great movie bad guys.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Well, yeah but a Superman movie implies some sense of action doesn't it? It's an event. A comic can get away with havng a reflective Superman because the comics are a monthly thing (twice-monthly in fact). The movies come around once every..god knows how long...so they have to cut to the chase and feature action as well as all the other things you'd expect. The comics have the luxury of not having to satisfy a mass (perhaps non-Superman-loving) audience in one sitting so they can experiment more. The movies are a whole different matter.

Hmmm... You might be right, but hell, I think that movie does have some action in it, don't you think? It's not like it was a soap opera or anything like that. The plane rescue, Superman saving Metropolis...

I also think that you have to experiment in all forms of media. It's something more common on comics, but the movies are valid means to experiment, too. Granted, it's a greater risk when it comes down to movies, but damn, that's the only way to know for sure whether or not things will work the way you want. That's my .02, anyway.

In the case of Superman, I firmly believe that those guys couldn't come and make a movie similar to Superman II, in terms of plot. They had to make something new, something different. And Superman's origin, as put by Donner, was simply brilliant. IMO, it would be foolish to make it again, throwing such a classic to the trash can.

After all, those movies are all, at least, 20 years old, and they had to make something original. I honestly commend Singer and Co. for having the balls to make something like Superman Returns. And that goes without taking into acccount all the deleted scenes.

On a sidenote, and BTW, I think that if there's something about that movie that we all like, is its sheer beauty. Visually and musically speaking, it was a beautiful movie.

[DC/Marvelfan]

They need to make a revamp movie, with an actor who is a MAN to play SuperMan. Time for something faithful to the comics not a Richard Donner movie.

Singer sucks and should not make any comic book movies anymore, he ruined the X-Men and now Supes.

[Paul Dee]

Hmmm... You might be right, but hell, I think that movie does have some action in it, don't you think? It's not like it was a soap opera or anything like that. The plane rescue, Superman saving Metropolis...

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying :) The movies have to (and do) have action in them - I was responding to the guy who said "Is it really, REALLY necessary to see Superman hitting something in order to say the movie is good? I don't think so. It's more about people understanding who Superman is. We've seen Superman comics being critically acclaimed, in which Superman doesn't throw a single punch."

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying :) The movies have to (and do) have action in them - I was responding to the guy who said "Is it really, REALLY necessary to see Superman hitting something in order to say the movie is good? I don't think so. It's more about people understanding who Superman is. We've seen Superman comics being critically acclaimed, in which Superman doesn't throw a single punch."

Oookay then... :)

That time I was talking about Superman fighting other Supervillains, which is what people feels the movie is lacking. Although that would have been GREAT to see (I agree with you on that), I think it's not a decisive factor when talking about how good/bad that movie is. I guess it's about the overall tone of the movie, rather than specific paarts of it.

[Powerboy]

I think the main problem with the Superman movies is that so far they've all been REALLY SILLY! Let's see, we have the world's greatest criminal, who's able to outsmart even Superman, but he surrounds himself with a bimbo and a stumbling idiot to complete his world conquering schemes? What is this, the 50's or something? Why not throw in Beppo the supermonkey and Zippy the supercat and get it over with?

Not only this, but pretty much every movie has focused on Luthor, who really isn't interesting enough to be the villain in every movie. I know Superman's pantheon isn't that great, but couldn't they have thrown us a braniac, metallo, or something by now?

Most of the comic movies have been interesting because they take the material seriously (well, except for Batman and Robin of course), but I don't ever feel like any of the Superman movies are supposed to be set in the "real world". They still feel like the old-timey campy 50's superman (spinning the earth in reverse to change time, etc).

After the first Superman movie came out (the first Chris Reeve one I mean), I went and bought a Superman comic having not read one since the early
1970s. This was in 1979 and the comic was so silly that the Superman movie with Chris Reeve was the most serious and realistic thing in the world by comparison. It just happened that the comic I bought was one with Lex Luthor in it. The Luthor of the movie with Gene Hackman was a criminal genius by comparison. I also think the comedy element of Luthor was there to offset the oh so serious tone of the Krypton and growing up parts which one of my professors described as, "My God. It was like reading 'Genesis'. For crying out loud, its Superman. Its supposed to be fun." (And she was an English professor).

In the first movie, they even joke around about that. Luthor asks himself why he, the world's greatest criminal genius, surrounds himself with complete and total idiots.

But the thing is, I remember an interview with Ilya Salkind (the producer) where he talked about all the scipts and scenes they rejected, scripts that were 'comic book' in the 'for little kids only' sense. They wanted it to be clear that, while its acceptable for children to watch, it is NOT a Superman only for eight year olds.

I'm a bit curious as to how old you are. That affects your view of the late 1970s. Someone might think the first Reeve movie was very much for adults were they seeing it in 1978-79. Another person, seeing them far later might have a very different perspective. I don't perceive the first two Reeve movies as even remotely resembling what the comics were back then in terms of the age level they were appealing to. In other ways, they were very true to the character.

By the way, from the moment I saw the movie, I always took that 'turning back the world' thing as a metaphor and that it was seen from Superman's perspective. From his point of view, the world did start spinning in reverse. That's how he knew he had succeeded in moving faster than light and time traveling. He didn't literally reverse the orbit of the planet. For him, everything DID look like it was going backwards.

[ACertainMrDoe]

"Superman Returns" IMHO: a completely flat, uninteresting, banal flick. Exactly the kind of movie people talk about and say, "oh, a comic adaption. well, kids' stuff."
I've seen it twice and have trouble recalling anything of its contents.

C-rate actor for supes, boring plot that we've seen now for the umpteenth time.

I didn't like Spider-Man 3 or X-Men 3, but they at least offered some "wow" moments.

It's a shame what's been done to the Superman franchise with this movie.

[trickster]

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying :) The movies have to (and do) have action in them - I was responding to the guy who said "Is it really, REALLY necessary to see Superman hitting something in order to say the movie is good? I don't think so. It's more about people understanding who Superman is.

Yeah, he's the guy from Krypton. BFD. Non comic nerds of which I'm proud to say I am one, won't care once outside the theater, and no one goes to see SR movie expecting a navel gazing movie. We should leave that to European cinema. There's nothing super about that. I have a feeling the Superman vs Doomsday animated movie will be what SR should have been, or will at least be better than it as in offer some whoa moments. And if it has to be preachy, Batman Begins outdid it even here.

[karasu]

Yes it is necessary for Superman to punch something for it to be a totally satisfying production. This is a guy who made his debut in ACTION comics by smashing a car into a mountain! There have been five Superman movies and I haven't seen Superman throw a really hard punch yet. Something is wrong with that. Plenty of movies give me drama or romance or whatever the feck. Superman movies should give me something that only a Superman movie can. Massively damaging fisticuffs at superspeed! Though I wish they were never made in the first place, heh. I hate this Mr Milquetoast that's been masquerading as Superman for the last 30 years. Instead of action they give me pining pretty boys. Ridiculous. And they've ruined poor Jor-el by turning him into an owl man with a god complex." They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son.". Shut the hell up. You sent your only son because he would have died otherwise. I will never understand how people swallow this pretentious drivel.

[trickster]

Yes it is necessary for Superman to punch something for it to be a totally satisfying production. This is a guy who made his debut in ACTION comics by smashing a car into a mountain! There have been five Superman movies and I haven't seen Superman throw a really hard punch yet. Something is wrong with that. Plenty of movies give me drama or romance or whatever the feck. Superman movies should give me something that only a Superman movie can. Massively damaging fisticuffs at superspeed! Though I wish they were never made in the first place, heh. I hate this Mr Milquetoast that's been masquerading as Superman for the last 30 years. Instead of action they give me pining pretty boys. Ridiculous. And they've ruined poor Jor-el by turning him into an owl man with a god complex." They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son.". Shut the hell up. You sent your only son because he would have died otherwise. I will never understand how people swallow this pretentious drivel.

Brilliant. Simply brilliant. Just like a diamond made from coal by Superman's hand.

[Spider-Man]

Here's how you fix the problem of Jason White:

Reveal that he's really Zod's kid, not Clark's. Turns out Zod used some tech in the Fortress to rape Lois. Lois never knew it and assumes Jason's is Clark's.

Yeah, I know. That's what they're doing (were doing) in Action Comics,sort of.

In my mind, the "Last Son" story in Action was lightyears better than Superman Returns. Why the WB didn't just get Donner and Johns on the film instead of Singer is beyond me.

I also agree they've painted themselves in quite the corner with Superman Returns. We'll see if they can make it out of that corner or not.

Spidey

[Ryan K]

Yes. Zod raping Lois is the answer to the Superman franchise.

[Gene M.]

Here's how you fix the problem of Jason White:

Reveal that he's really Zod's kid, not Clark's. Turns out Zod used some tech in the Fortress to rape Lois. Lois never knew it and assumes Jason's is Clark's.

Yeah, I know. That's what they're doing (were doing) in Action Comics,sort of.

In my mind, the "Last Son" story in Action was lightyears better than Superman Returns. Why the WB didn't just get Donner and Johns on the film instead of Singer is beyond me.

I also agree they've painted themselves in quite the corner with Superman Returns. We'll see if they can make it out of that corner or not.

Spidey
Why would Superman have "rape technology" in the Fortress of Solitude?

[Sean Whitmore]

Why would Superman have "rape technology" in the Fortress of Solitude?

Because Superman is a dick.

http://www.superdickery.com/images/dick/papaspank9de.jpg


SEAN

[Spider-Man]

First of all, my rape reference was apparently a little too subtle. I was trying to reference the whole Sue Dibny thing. I clearly failed.

And by "rape technoloy," I meant that Zod would use a machine to make Lois forget he impregnated her.

Anyway, it was a joke. The best way to undo Jason is to have him sacrifice himself for his father during a climactic battle.

Or keep him around, if he can be written intelligently AND performed intelligently.

Spidey

[The Batman]

Well Jason does give them an out. If Singer's really going to stick with Donner's take on Superman than he's going to probably wrestle with the idea, brought up in Superman II, that Superman can't be Superman and be with Lois. With Jason around, at a certain point he can be clued into the full scope of his special heritage and taught to use his powers he can protect the world while Kal-El/Clark Kent can rest, with Lois, knowing that the world is safe.

That's only one, and probably the least creative since I came up with it, of countless directions they can go in with the Jason story.

[Binker]

This is what I hate about those who don't like Superman Returns. Their reasons are either not very good reasons to begin with or there isn't any substance. Killing off Jason is not going to happen. Think about it; killing off a kid? You think anyone isn't going to say anything about it? Plus, killing him off would be the easy way out. And their are plans for Chris Kent, even a Chris/Batman team up by Busiek, so that can be the case for Jason. So I repeat: KILLING OFF JASON IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

BTW, Superman Returns is a semi-sequel to the 1978 film. Which means, it kinda does but it is not truly connected to the first film, nor the second (since I didn't say second). So people need to get that through their heads.

I only have three criticisms for Superman Returns: the vague history termed backstory by Bryan Singer made it confusing, which it was a good thing the writers used an easier term which was "semi-sequel". Given the nature that the film had emotion and less action, I believe it would have been better for a Spring or December release than Summer since Summer films are action. And its just me, but since Singer introduced the world and will give the action in the sequel, maybe they could've done two films back to back like, of course, Superman I-II.

But from the overall, Superman Returns is 3.5/5 and a 7/10 and has been nominated and won awards. And add that with the sequel coming, thats enough to tell you that the film was good. I have a strong feeling, that it may have happened with Star Trek and X-Men parts one and two, that after the sequel is released and is better than than Superman Returns, people who didn't like this film will go back and say "y'know, this isn't a bad film afterall".

[Sean Whitmore]

This is what I hate about those who don't like Superman Returns. Their reasons are either not very good reasons to begin with or there isn't any substance.

I disagree.

Pull one of the several movie threads out of the mothballs, and you'll see plenty of good, substantive reasons people didn't like the movie.

And I say this as someone who...eh...mostly liked it.


SEAN

[Bishop_Proudstar]

Should've started-over completely like Batman, or...


Really, honestly began after Superman II as The real sequel to Superman II..

I know what was said, and reported..

Lex shoud've used The Fortress Technology to build The Green Armor..


Braniac senses the battle of Zod's gang and Kal then heads for Earth.. It takes him a few years to get there..

[Bishop_Proudstar]

First of all, my rape reference was apparently a little too subtle. I was trying to reference the whole Sue Dibny thing. I clearly failed.

And by "rape technoloy," I meant that Zod would use a machine to make Lois forget he impregnated her.

Anyway, it was a joke. The best way to undo Jason is to have him sacrifice himself for his father during a climactic battle.

Or keep him around, if he can be written intelligently AND performed intelligently.

Spidey

The boy? Speed-grown by Cadmus? "Me name Bizarro!"

..or he's MaGog..(Reverse Luke vs. Vader situation)

..or he's The Eradicator...

..or he's Cyborg-Man

..or he's Superboy..

..and he's created by The Toyman who works as a scientist for Cadmus..

[Powerboy]

Yes it is necessary for Superman to punch something for it to be a totally satisfying production. This is a guy who made his debut in ACTION comics by smashing a car into a mountain! There have been five Superman movies and I haven't seen Superman throw a really hard punch yet. Something is wrong with that. Plenty of movies give me drama or romance or whatever the feck. Superman movies should give me something that only a Superman movie can. Massively damaging fisticuffs at superspeed! Though I wish they were never made in the first place, heh. I hate this Mr Milquetoast that's been masquerading as Superman for the last 30 years. Instead of action they give me pining pretty boys. Ridiculous. And they've ruined poor Jor-el by turning him into an owl man with a god complex." They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son.". Shut the hell up. You sent your only son because he would have died otherwise. I will never understand how people swallow this pretentious drivel.

I have mixed feelings on that one. Jor-El sent his son away from Krypton to save his life. He sent him to a lighter gravity planet with a yellow sun so he'd be powerful and safe. He sent him specifically to Earth out of all such planets because of human potential. So it is true that, "Of all the planets I could have sent you to, I have sent you to Earth because they have great potential."

That said, an over-actor in a George Washington wig was not my image of Jor-El.

While I certainly have nothing against Christopher Reeve, I always had pictured Superman as a bit older and less prettyboy. Although George Reeves didn't look like the comic book Superman, I thought he made a good live action image. 37 when he first played Superman and about 42 the last time if I recall correctly. Jack Larson said it well in a commentary, that nowadays, with all due respect to Brandon Routh, it does seem like Superman is more Superboy. George Reeves at least looked like a mature (I said mature, not old) man and not a boy and, at least to me, he didn't look like a prettyboy or preppy or whatever. He had a more rugged look.

What with "Returns" being a sequel to the first two Chris Reeve movies and six years since then, they had a perfect excuse to give us a Superman who was at least in his mid-thirties or even older, played by a good and in shape actor of that age.

[karasu]

I have mixed feelings on that one. Jor-El sent his son away from Krypton to save his life. He sent him to a lighter gravity planet with a yellow sun so he'd be powerful and safe. He sent him specifically to Earth out of all such planets because of human potential. So it is true that, "Of all the planets I could have sent you to, I have sent you to Earth because they have great potential."


I actually detest that. I prefer that he sent him to Earth because it was a populated planet that his son had a chance of surviving on. I don't believe he had time to look into our 'potential'. I'd like to know what his idea of potential was, especially seeing how screwed up and emotionless Krypton was in those lame films. I refuse to believe that Superman's goodness is somehow the standard for all Kryptonians. For all he knows his son could have grown up to be an asshole, not a 'savior'. Donner and crew spent too much time in the Bible IMO. I wish they would have stuck with Superman's own mythology instead of borrowing from something uber popular like the Bible.

[Powerboy]

I actually detest that. I prefer that he sent him to Earth because it was a populated planet that his son had a chance of surviving on. I don't believe he had time to look into our 'potential'. I'd like to know what his idea of potential was, especially seeing how screwed up and emotionless Krypton was in those lame films. I refuse to believe that Superman's goodness is somehow the standard for all Kryptonians. For all he knows his son could have grown up to be an asshole, not a 'savior'. Donner and crew spent too much time in the Bible IMO. I wish they would have stuck with Superman's own mythology instead of borrowing from something uber popular like the Bible.

Yeah, I had a professor in college who detested the first part of the movie because she felt it was like watching 'Genesis' being played out. Her attitude was, "Come on, its Superman, its supposed to be fun." But I don't think the popularity of the movie was because of Marlon Brando or the Krypton sequences. In some ways, I think it was popular in spite of that.

I did get the clear impression that the Kryptonians had studied other worlds, if not in person then through long range observation. This was something established in the comics by that time.

There is an inconsistency, of course. When Jor-El appears to Clark/ Kal-El, he says something like, "By the time you see this, I will have been dead for many thousands of your years." But later in the movie, when estimating the path of the rocket, Luthor states that it left Krypton in the Earth year 1948. However, the 'thousands of your years' statement is reaffirmed in "Superman Returns". And yet, Superman can use the rocket to travel to Krypton and back again in a few years. Even better, what Krypton? "That place was a masoleum" or "a morgue" or whatever he said. ???? It exploded. What planet? And was Jor-El observing Midwest America in the 1940s or the ancient Greek philosophers when he said this would be a good place to send his son?

Anyway, none of that is all that important to me. The one real issue I have with the 'Superman as Jesus' analogy is that he doesn't live up to it. I mean, come on, he basically becomes a super cop, flying around in a cape and tights stopping bank robberies. Its not as if he's dealing with poverty or the spiritual needs of humanity. The idea that Superman inspires humans to become supermen in the future is never brought up in the movies. Such a sententious buildup on Krypton seems wasted.

[mattx110]

Yeah, I had a professor in college who detested the first part of the movie because she felt it was like watching 'Genesis' being played out. Her attitude was, "Come on, its Superman, its supposed to be fun." But I don't think the popularity of the movie was because of Marlon Brando or the Krypton sequences. In some ways, I think it was popular in spite of that.

I did get the clear impression that the Kryptonians had studied other worlds, if not in person then through long range observation. This was something established in the comics by that time.

There is an inconsistency, of course. When Jor-El appears to Clark/ Kal-El, he says something like, "By the time you see this, I will have been dead for many thousands of your years." But later in the movie, when estimating the path of the rocket, Luthor states that it left Krypton in the Earth year 1948. However, the 'thousands of your years' statement is reaffirmed in "Superman Returns". And yet, Superman can use the rocket to travel to Krypton and back again in a few years. Even better, what Krypton? "That place was a masoleum" or "a morgue" or whatever he said. ???? It exploded. What planet? And was Jor-El observing Midwest America in the 1940s or the ancient Greek philosophers when he said this would be a good place to send his son?

Anyway, none of that is all that important to me. The one real issue I have with the 'Superman as Jesus' analogy is that he doesn't live up to it. I mean, come on, he basically becomes a super cop, flying around in a cape and tights stopping bank robberies. Its not as if he's dealing with poverty or the spiritual needs of humanity. The idea that Superman inspires humans to become supermen in the future is never brought up in the movies. Such a sententious buildup on Krypton seems wasted.

lol, this was my problem with the matrix. at the end of the film keanu says he's gonna show people what they can do, to the point where the matrix is meaningless because there will be tons of superpeople and the agents will be useless. and all these people will have achieved "enlightenment" or whatever. instead, he's morpheus's private bodyguard and he fights agents in secret dark alleys.
he went from jesus, to an underground freedom fighter, back to jesus in revolutions.

[Stanlos]

Why can't the world's first and greatest superhero get a fair shake in the film industry? In my mind, the Man of Steel should be shattering box office records like a certain webslinger, but the reception for Superman's latest big screen attempt was mixed-at-best, I would say.

I've thought about this a lot, and I think it comes down to one moment. In the original SUPERMAN, the scene where Superman reveals himself to the world by simultaneously saving Lois Lane and catching the falling helicopter is the absolute, definitive depiction of who Superman is and what he stands for. After that, everything else is anti-climactic. Unfortunately, the movie continues for another 2 hours. Then there were 3 sequels. Then SUPERMAN RETURNS (which does briefly blow on and slightly rekindle dying embers with its homage sequence with Superman saving the space shuttle and passenger plane). But since that moment when Christopher Reeve first opened his shirt and pulled off the glasses to save the day, everything else has paled in comparison for the cinematic Superman. Can he ever attain the glory he deserves?


Well, this last one suffered from very poor direction where the action was concerned (the recent DOA DEAD OR ALIVE movie had better directing). It also had a terrible plot, and it featured a Superman who catches a beatdown in the VERY FIRST MOVIE. That is for the sequel. The first film should be him being awesome.

That last part leads to the big one for me--Superman was not a super guy in this film. The most heroic figure in the film James Marsden's character (swoon!).

[David Walton]

You know, one of the things I had honestly hoped for when it was first announced that "Returns" would be loosely connected to the first two Superman movies was that the plotline would involve a kind of multiverse--perhaps the unintended consequence of Superman reversing time in the first film.

[comicnerd]

I sort of agree with you on that... that would have been cool.

Dude, new to the site.... hi everyone!

[666MasterOfPuppets]

I sort of agree with you on that... that would have been cool.

Dude, new to the site.... hi everyone!

Hi comicnerd. Welcome to the boards.

[Preus]

There's not really anything wrong with the Superman films besides Superman IV. Even though I somewhat liked that movie it was still horrible. Superman III was okay but some things could've been better. Superman: The Movie, Superman II, & Superman Returns are the best Superman movies to date.

[Stanlos]

Don't forget Lois Lane. A true moron if there ever was one. Not only did she walk into a potentially dangerous situation without any forethought, but in this latest travesty of a film, she brought her freakin' kid along with her.

I think its time someone called social services on this broad.

Just reading it makes me blow my top.

I just want to forget Superman Returns in its entirety. James Marsden's character (was that his brother in DOA DEAD OR ALIVE?) was the only shining light in this movie. Were it not for him I probably would have had an aneurism. He was the true hero of the film for me.

[Preus]

Oh, please, stop with all the hate. Sure, there are some inconsistences in 'Superman Returns' but I still find it to be a great film.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Just reading it makes me blow my top.

I just want to forget Superman Returns in its entirety. James Marsden's character (was that his brother in DOA DEAD OR ALIVE?) was the only shining light in this movie. Were it not for him I probably would have had an aneurism. He was the true hero of the film for me.

And how come, sir, SUPERMAN wasn't a hero in this film? Oh yes, you're right. He didn't save anyone in that movie, he just stayed in Smallville watching TV. :rolleyes:

[The Batman]

So then it was Richard White and his little seaplane that almost died lifting New Krypton into space?

[666MasterOfPuppets]

So then it was Richard White and his little seaplane that almost died lifting New Krypton into space?

Don't forget that Richard also saved the 777, stopped the bank robbery AND saved Metropolis.

EDIT: And just for the record, I'm being sarcastic. ;)

[DC/Marvelfan]

Superman deserves a great revamp, faithful to the comics, and with a good story. Routh wasn't a bad Superman, but he should do his own thing instead of being obviously pressured into doing a Christopher impression, He looks somewhat like Curt Swan's SuperMan, I saw him working out and he got quite big, but when they stuck him in that suit it like slimmed him down, it was a horrible design by an idiot who did not get it.

She really ticked me off when she was rambling in one dockumentary. Saying that the yellow S on the back wouldn't be recognized, Come on! Sorry to rant about the suit but it's like saying don't give Abraham Lincoln his beard no one will know what it is, Supes has had that S for years and people know what it is, they said it would fold up and know one would see it, no it wouldn't, in all the shows and movies it always stayed visible, and even if I saw a corner of it I'd know what it was.

They need a new director with real vision who cares about the character and respects the Comics and the Fans, like Sam Raimi, They need to either recast Superman or have Routh be free to do something new, the suit has to be fixed to look more faithful, a brighter Red, and a cape that is not a shower curtain, a deep red not something that looks like it is maroon obviously.

and the hair should be fixed too, they combed it like downward, it should be straight back more so, and when he's Clark let it be more natural, maybe even a bit more natural as Supes.

Get a new Villian, Superman has a great Rogues gallery, I'd say Brainiac in one, and Bizarro or Parasite in the next, Parasite would be cool, there's alot of potential there, Superman could go toe to toe and then realize he has to keep his distance and then figure some way to take him down, possibly turning to Kryptonite having to don some lead armored suit of some type.

Brainiac in keeping with the Kryptonian Animated series idea would be cool.

Other wise I'll just have to watch TAS and that up coming Superman dvd Doomsday movie for a good Superman story.

[Binker]

Superman deserves a great revamp, faithful to the comics, and with a good story.

Well okay, but in the revamped continuity in the comics, elements from the films are now in the comics (Krypton, crystals, Fortress). So saying that, knowing full well what is now in the comics today, is not really that different than what Superman Returns had.

Routh wasn't a bad Superman, but he should do his own thing instead of being obviously pressured into doing a Christopher impression

When they referenced the previous films, he does bring in Reeve into Routh. But when they didn't, he was his own.

She really ticked me off when she was rambling in one dockumentary. Saying that the yellow S on the back wouldn't be recognized

I don't remember that. I don't know if you heard that wrong or something. But on the yellow "S", this is something also being argued in Superman/Doomsday. Superman's cape does look better without the "S", at times. And its really up to the one who is doing the film or animated series if the yellow S is really needed. STAS/JL-JLU didn't have it, LoSH didn't, SR doesn't, and Doomsday won't. And I don't really care for the yellow S. Sometimes it looks better when the cape doesn't have it. In the comics, its needed. But outside the comics, its not really needed. In animation, I got the feeling it is easy to animate the cape without the "S" because of what the cape does animated instead of the suit itself.

For the costume, as long as they keep the basics of what it is, then they did a good job. Yellow "S" is something that hasn't been on the cape in some incarnations, and it looks better. So not having the yellow "S" is fine.

They need a new director with real vision who cares about the character and respects the Comics and the Fans, like Sam Raimi, They need to either recast Superman or have Routh be free to do something new, the suit has to be fixed to look more faithful, a brighter Red, and a cape that is not a shower curtain, a deep red not something that looks like it is maroon obviously.

I believe the changes to the suit is what will happen in the sequel. As for changing the director: No. Singer has good themes he explores that he did in X-Men and now with Superman. And he has been faithful to the character than the other directors would have done to Superman V. Plus, those writers are comic book fans so they know the comics and Singer will most likely be more faithful in MOS. You have to look back at X-Men and X2 to see that and use that as what MOS will be. ANd BTW< the writers and Singer know what we want, and will deliver. Recast Routh? No way. Routh did a good job, they just need him to do more. BTW, why do people bring in Sam Raimi for Superman? First off, Spider-Man 3 has made me cringe. Secondly; Raimi didn't even at any tiem went to WB with an idea for Superman, so I'm not quite sure if he is a fan of him. I know he is on Batman.

Get a new Villian, Superman has a great Rogues gallery

When SR won at the Saturn Awards, the writers and Sinegr were interviewed. Not only did they say that "you have to give fans what they want", but they said "Superman is only as good as his villians". So there will be more than one. As for who, well there have been talks about: Brainiac, Bizarro, & Metallo. I strongly believe that New Krypton set the satge for Brainiac. And recently, at the Saturn Awards, when asked about Zod, the producer smiled. So either he was playing with them or Zod will be in the sequel. And me personally, one hand I wouldn't want him again, but on the other since I have been loving "Last Son", Zod may not be a bad choice.

BTW, Singer did mention in Con '06 that he'd be lookign at "Last Son" for the sequel. So since that has been enjoyable, maybe......

[The Batman]

Superman deserves a great revamp, faithful to the comics, and with a good story. Routh wasn't a bad Superman, but he should do his own thing instead of being obviously pressured into doing a Christopher impression, He looks somewhat like Curt Swan's SuperMan, I saw him working out and he got quite big, but when they stuck him in that suit it like slimmed him down, it was a horrible design by an idiot who did not get it.

She really ticked me off when she was rambling in one dockumentary. Saying that the yellow S on the back wouldn't be recognized, Come on! Sorry to rant about the suit but it's like saying don't give Abraham Lincoln his beard no one will know what it is, Supes has had that S for years and people know what it is, they said it would fold up and know one would see it, no it wouldn't, in all the shows and movies it always stayed visible, and even if I saw a corner of it I'd know what it was.

They need a new director with real vision who cares about the character and respects the Comics and the Fans, like Sam Raimi, They need to either recast Superman or have Routh be free to do something new, the suit has to be fixed to look more faithful, a brighter Red, and a cape that is not a shower curtain, a deep red not something that looks like it is maroon obviously.

and the hair should be fixed too, they combed it like downward, it should be straight back more so, and when he's Clark let it be more natural, maybe even a bit more natural as Supes.

Get a new Villian, Superman has a great Rogues gallery, I'd say Brainiac in one, and Bizarro or Parasite in the next, Parasite would be cool, there's alot of potential there, Superman could go toe to toe and then realize he has to keep his distance and then figure some way to take him down, possibly turning to Kryptonite having to don some lead armored suit of some type.

Brainiac in keeping with the Kryptonian Animated series idea would be cool.

Other wise I'll just have to watch TAS and that up coming Superman dvd Doomsday movie for a good Superman story.


You know alot of this boils down to fanboy nitpicking. Sorry, it just does.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Well okay, but in the revamped continuity in the comics, elements from the films are now in the comics (Krypton, crystals, Fortress). So saying that, knowing full well what is now in the comics today, is not really that different than what Superman Returns had.

Agreed. And for the record, adding the Donner movies' elements to the comics is something I think is cool.

I don't remember that. I don't know if you heard that wrong or something. But on the yellow "S", this is something also being argued in Superman/Doomsday. Superman's cape does look better without the "S", at times. And its really up to the one who is doing the film or animated series if the yellow S is really needed. STAS/JL-JLU didn't have it, LoSH didn't, SR doesn't, and Doomsday won't. And I don't really care for the yellow S. Sometimes it looks better when the cape doesn't have it. In the comics, its needed. But outside the comics, its not really needed. In animation, I got the feeling it is easy to animate the cape without the "S" because of what the cape does animated instead of the suit itself.

For the costume, as long as they keep the basics of what it is, then they did a good job. Yellow "S" is something that hasn't been on the cape in some incarnations, and it looks better. So not having the yellow "S" is fine.

As a matter of fact, I understood that they removed the S-shield from the cape becuase if it stayed, it would be something very difficult to do when it came down to CGI graphics or something.

I believe the changes to the suit is what will happen in the sequel.

Interesting theory. Perhaps it'll happen.

As for changing the director: No. Singer has good themes he explores that he did in X-Men and now with Superman. And he has been faithful to the character than the other directors would have done to Superman V. Plus, those writers are comic book fans so they know the comics and Singer will most likely be more faithful in MOS. You have to look back at X-Men and X2 to see that and use that as what MOS will be. ANd BTW< the writers and Singer know what we want, and will deliver. Recast Routh? No way. Routh did a good job, they just need him to do more. BTW, why do people bring in Sam Raimi for Superman? First off, Spider-Man 3 has made me cringe. Secondly; Raimi didn't even at any tiem went to WB with an idea for Superman, so I'm not quite sure if he is a fan of him. I know he is on Batman.

I still believe that Singer was the right choice. And still is.

When SR won at the Saturn Awards, the writers and Sinegr were interviewed. Not only did they say that "you have to give fans what they want", but they said "Superman is only as good as his villians". So there will be more than one. As for who, well there have been talks about: Brainiac, Bizarro, & Metallo. I strongly believe that New Krypton set the satge for Brainiac. And recently, at the Saturn Awards, when asked about Zod, the producer smiled. So either he was playing with them or Zod will be in the sequel. And me personally, one hand I wouldn't want him again, but on the other since I have been loving "Last Son", Zod may not be a bad choice.

BTW, Singer did mention in Con '06 that he'd be lookign at "Last Son" for the sequel. So since that has been enjoyable, maybe......

I don't remember Singer saying that at San Diego. Do you have any sort of link?

As for Zod, I remember reading rumors about Jude Law getting the role, or at least having the offering in front of him.

[The Batman]

IIRC, I believe Singer wanted Zod to play some role in Returns. Maybe as a set up for the next movie or maybe as a flashback or something but some role. The only actor he saw in the role was Jude Law, who wasn't interested in playing a cartoon character or some such thing.

[niall mc cann]

IIRC, I believe Singer wanted Zod to play some role in Returns. Maybe as a set up for the next movie or maybe as a flashback or something but some role. The only actor he saw in the role was Jude Law, who wasn't interested in playing a cartoon character or some such thing.

I doubt Law would object on those grounds.

He's a huge comics nerd. He's got a Rorschach tatoo on his right shoulder, iirc.

[DaeJi]

I think the biggest flaw in Superman Returns is that it expected us to almost be in awe of Superman throughout the movie. He's presented to us as near perfect, noble, humble even, lacking in desire, a shining star for all to see, a god. It's gets boring for most people quickly. Bryan Singer had too much love for the past movies and the Sups shown in them; it became all about the feel of Superman, and not enough of the man part. Imagine a Superman like us, with feeling and desires and doubts, who makes mistakes and has those oops moments and is the human his parents raised him to be. Yeah, Superman may be the ideal of superheroes, but that's only because they don't get to see the human part of him; the part that we as an audience should get to see. And have a freaking fight already! There are beings out there who can beat the hell out of Superman, even when Sup's is going all out. Stick them in a movie and have some fun! I hope Brainiac is in the next one, and not green faced evil scientist Brainiac but supercool giant robot deathray Brainiac!

[niall mc cann]

I think the biggest flaw in Superman Returns is that it expected us to almost be in awe of Superman throughout the movie. He's presented to us as near perfect, noble, humble even, lacking in desire, a shining star for all to see, a god.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same film. This was the most angsty, naval-gazing superman i'd seen.

And for the part i boldened... He was pretty consumed by desire for most of the film, as far as i could see.

[The Batman]

I doubt Law would object on those grounds.

He's a huge comics nerd. He's got a Rorschach tatoo on his right shoulder, iirc.

That's just what I remember reading. I admit that I might be wrong or the source could be wrong.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

I think the biggest flaw in Superman Returns is that it expected us to almost be in awe of Superman throughout the movie. He's presented to us as near perfect, noble, humble even, lacking in desire, a shining star for all to see, a god. It's gets boring for most people quickly. Bryan Singer had too much love for the past movies and the Sups shown in them; it became all about the feel of Superman, and not enough of the man part. Imagine a Superman like us, with feeling and desires and doubts, who makes mistakes and has those oops moments and is the human his parents raised him to be. Yeah, Superman may be the ideal of superheroes, but that's only because they don't get to see the human part of him; the part that we as an audience should get to see. And have a freaking fight already! There are beings out there who can beat the hell out of Superman, even when Sup's is going all out. Stick them in a movie and have some fun! I hope Brainiac is in the next one, and not green faced evil scientist Brainiac but supercool giant robot deathray Brainiac!

Interesting you mention it. This is what Chuck Austen did in his run on Action Comics, and almost everyone said it was crap.

This kind of opinions is something I will never understand. First, people want to see a "more human" Superman. Then it's done, but people don't like it and say it's out of character, crappy, and things like that...

And for the record, I saw this Superman as a man who has a lot to deal with in his life.

Superman's NOT human, dammit. He's an alien god who has come to guide us, and tries to live among us, as one of us.

[Pinnacle]

Interesting you mention it. This is what Chuck Austen did in his run on Action Comics, and almost everyone said it was crap.

This kind of opinions is something I will never understand. First, people want to see a "more human" Superman. Then it's done, but people don't like it and say it's out of character, crappy, and things like that...

And for the record, I saw this Superman as a man who has a lot to deal with in his life.

Superman's NOT human, dammit. He's an alien god who has come to guide us, and tries to live among us, as one of us.

Chuck Austen DID NOT write a human Superman. His writing was pure Heroclix fanfic with absolutely no story whatsoever. He thought bringing in obscure DC villains to fight Superman in some sort of nonstop action battle royale made him a good Superman writer. He knew nothing about the character and even had Smallville with a population of 250,000 the size of a small city not a rural farm town.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Chuck Austen DID NOT write a human Superman. His writing was pure Heroclix fanfic with absolutely no story whatsoever. He thought bringing in obscure DC villains to fight Superman in some sort of nonstop action battle royale made him a good Superman writer. He knew nothing about the character and even had Smallville with a population of 250,000 the size of a small city not a rural farm town.

No? I disagree. As for the Smallville thing, I think it wasn't relevant, nor the point of my comment.

[Aziz Abbasi]

.Didn't see B&W
.Superman 1&2 are good enough to not see a flaw in them
.Don't remember 3
.Superman returns is terrible, just didn't get to me

[theNighteye]

I didn't like the fact that Kate Bosworth was Lois Lane. She is not touch enough and her face is too pretty. Lois has more of an exotic look, not girl next door. and i didn't like her dating Cyclops. and the movie was kinda boring. except when we find out superman has a son. but i kinda figured that's how it would be.

[Rev. Calibos]

It took me awhile to figure it out but I think I finally realized why Superman Returns just didn't do anything for me.

If you're like me, when you first saw it and you saw the old school opening your pulse started to pick up quite a bit.....it was a nice tip of the hat to the classic films and the whole film was a nice love letter to those movies and that time frame.

Which is why it didn't do nearly as well as Batman Begins or Dark Knight.


I'm all for embracing our past and cherishing the memories we have of the older films, but while Superman Returns was a touching tribute it wasn't what it NEEDED to be: A relaunching of the franchise.

I love Chistopher Reeve. His portrayal of the Man of Steel was a major part of my childhood and when he passed it was a dark day for me and for fans worldwide.


That being said, how many NEW fans ever REMEMBER the first four movies?

How many of them grew up thinking that Zod was public bad ass No. 1?

If they were to watch Mallrats would they get the joke 3/4ths of the way through when Jay smacks the mall cop and says 'Come, son of Jor-El, KNEEL before Zod'?

I loved the first movies but we need to put out Superman movies that are looking forward.

As much as I dislike Smallville (Superman 90210) it would have served the franchise better to have had a strong Smallville feature film that gave fans of the TV show a chance to see Clark finally emerge as Superman when he hits Metropolis.

I don't know, it's hard to describe but the main difference between Dark Knight/Batman Begins and Superman Returns is that Chris Nolan and co. were looking towards the future whilst Singer and co. were looking back to the past.