Give Brandon Routh and Singer another shoot.
If he makes a Superman movie reboot with themes from the X-men, I buy it!
shareIf he makes a Superman movie reboot with themes from the X-men, I buy it!
shareYes to Routh. No to Singer. Singer has too much of a hard-on for the Donner movies and they need to stay in the past.
I thought Brandon Routh showed quite a bit of potential and could've excelled in the role if he had a director that wasn't so focused on him playing Christopher Reeve that he forgot to let him play Superman.
I'm with, Ace. Routh was great. He did what he was there for and told to do. The writing and directing was subpar to say the least.
shareAgreed. We need both back pronto.
share agree X100
If I didn’t talk the way I talk I wouldn’t know who the hell I am, Sean Connery on his accent
Routh is in DCs Legends Of Tomorrow and I think that he is better suited for a Tv show.
shareI honestly don't know how he keeps getting hired; he's utterly charmless and a true charisma-void. About the only thing I can say nice about Routh's turn as Superman is that he clearly respected Christopher Reeve's work; so much so that he was doing an impression rather than his own interpretation (sadly with a tiny fraction of Reeve's charisma). I guess because Christopher Reeve was so iconic in that dual role, no one can ever do that interpretation again without instantly being compared to him.
shareI'd say you're being harsh on Routh. I'd tell you to rewatch the film, but I wouldn't want you to punish yourself like that. Aside from having to deliver a few lines lifted out of the first film, Routh doesn't really try doing an impression of Reeve. Reeve played Superman like he genuinely got a kick out of doing heroic things, smiling and waving to people. Singer had Routh play Superman as if it was a burden, always looking sad and isolated like some loner. When Superman does those heroics in Metropolis during the earthquakes, he doesn't smile to people he rescued, he just looks sad most of the time. The poor guy. When he rescues Kitty or stops a bank robbery, he merely smirks and says so little. At least Reeve had some funny cheesy quips "bad vibrations?".
I haven't seen much of Routh outside of Superman, but the most memorable I've seen of him was in SCOTT PILGRIM where he played an evil ex. In that supporting role he's actually funny and charismatic, something that was completely lacking in his Superman performance. It was truly bizarre to watch and I can only blame Singer for constraining him in the Superman role, especially since the script does not give Superman a whole lot to do compared to the first two films.
I look forward to seeing LEGENDS OF TOMORROW when I get to it. I hear Routh is pretty good in that one, and I'm happy he's found his niche.
He's sad all the time because Singer wanted to make him a complex character. He's not happy saving people's lives because Lois doesn't love him anymore and had a child with someone else. It's all in the movie.
shareThat's not very complex, it's stupid and emo. It goes against Supes' optimistic viewpoint. Lois moving on with her life wouldn't bring him down, he would be happy that she's at peace.
There's better ways of showing Superman is complex without turning him into a clichéd tortured hero sulking in the corner.
How is that stupid or emo? I related to his pain about seeing a woman you love move on and make a life with someone else, I think most men can. He's a super MAN, not some angel that's always going to be optimistic and look on the bright side after viewing the desolate remains of his home planet and coming back to a world overrun by violence, terrorism, and modern warfare (shown when he's flipping through channels on the Kent farm toward the beginning of the film) along with his love leaving him.
Also, the reason Clark saves the world is not because he's some kind of angel sent here to deliver us from evil, he does it because he loves Lois. There is no other reason. Jor-el sent him to Earth to lead us, but in Singer's version Clark clearly only cares about being with Lois. Everyone on earth is happy he's back except the one woman he saves the earth for, that's a complicated dilemma.
He flies up with Lois above the city. "What do you hear?" "Nothing." "I hear everything. You say the world doesn't need a savior, but every day I hear people crying for one." That's another cool dilemma never present in previous Superman films. What's it like being able to do anything, but not being able to save everyone? What's it like when the reason you save the world, the reason you love humanity, doesn't want you to save her or look out for her anymore? That's called emotions, not being "emo."
Lois wrote an article called "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman," for *beep*'s sake. He goes in for a kiss when he brings her back down to the Daily Planet, and the pain on his face when she rejects it is all-too-human and straight-up ballsy to put in a superhero film. I read somewhere that Clark is the reality and Superman the secret identity in Singer's version. He's still Clark when he puts the costume on, he still feels and loves Lois. How bad do you think he feels that she rejected him for a pilot, another man who can fly? That's called good writing by the way, like most of this film. Pay attention if you watch next time and have a shred of empathy if you're capable of it (which I doubt by your response.)
All of what you laid out is exactly why I am not a fan of Singer's interpretation. For me, and as far as other interpretations are concerned, Superman is supposed to be above all of that. He's not supposed to be this mopey guy that feels BURDEN over being the "savior" that it pains him like it does for Spider-Man. He's not saving the world for some girl. Superman does what he does because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO. He's not the guy that will potentially risk breaking up a family just to sneak a kiss on Lois. He doesn't abandon his home on Earth without telling anyone except his poor old mom he'll be gone for five years to search for some long dead planet that shouldn't mean anything to him more than just a special heritage. This is Singer trying to make Superman relatable by turning him into some loner that feels so isolated. What works wonderfully in X-MEN doesn't really translate well with SUPERMAN. Had this not been a Superman movie but an entirely new character, I may give it more leeway. With Superman, it's crossing too many lines.
The key to what makes Superman isn't just that he's relatable, it's that he's someone we aspire to be. He's supposed to represent the best of us. He can still be flawed and make mistakes from time to time if the story really delivered on that and stays true to the character. Why would I want to aspire to be a creepy stalker that was too afraid of telling Lois that he was going to abandon his home for several years in search for some dead planet? I get what Singer was trying to go for, but it just doesn't mesh well with Superman.
He's not "super MAN" as you put it, he's SUPER man. That's what Singer failed to understand, and that's why no sequel was made to this.
If you read comics, you'd know that Superman leaves Earth all the time. He's also searched for Krypton in the comics. And you act like it's some unheard of thing for a man to visit where they came from, especially if he found out that his real family might be there, or at least other people like him if it wasn't destroyed.
shareYeah I don't care about the comics dude
shareIf you read comics, you'd know that Superman leaves Earth all the time. He's also searched for Krypton in the comics. And you act like it's some unheard of thing for a man to visit where they came from, especially if he found out that his real family might be there, or at least other people like him if it wasn't destroyed.
Singer was trying to bring Superman into the 21st century with relatable angst and intense emotional storylines, and honestly I don't care about your preconceived notions about what Superman should or shouldn't be. Interact with the movie on the movie's own level, don't criticize a film because it didn't fit your definition of what it should be.
It's not just what he does in SR, it's how he does it that's out of character.
Turing characters angsty isn't going to automatically make a character more relatable for audiences.
I guarantee you had SUPERMAN RETRUNS been more true to the tone of those Reeve films it would have been far more embraced.
People were upset at Returns in the first place for being too similar to the Reeve films. Ten years ago most people were expecting a clean slate
Superman just doesn't get much leniency from audiences because the property isn't as beloved and backed by Warner as Batman is. It's hard for the company to find an audience for Superman because Batman is an easy crowd pleaser yet the latter is so different and it's a hard sell for young male audiences.
but that it rehashed too many plot elements from that first film and what was offered new was underwhelming and controversial.
WB's problem since they retained the film rights in 1993 is that they never believed in the property because they overthink what audiences want and assume they find Superman too corny.
I wish someone would come up to WB and just point out the John Byrne 1986 reboot comic MAN OF STEEL. It's really the best take at modernizing Superman while sticking true to what makes the character enduring. SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES is pretty much a great adaptation of that and may be the best take on that character. If WB could for once have faith in that property, we'd get something truly worthwhile.
The real shame is that it would now be harder to convince audiences of going to a Superman film after we've had SUPERMAN RETURNS, MAN OF STEEL and DAWN OF JUSTICE taint the brand. Three miserable films in a row.
With this I completely agree. Superman isn't Batman. He doesn't sulk. He doesn't do the poor me thing. Not that he is "Pollyanna" about things. He just sees it will turn out right.
For my taste Superman Returns was closer to the way Supes is in the comics and animated movie. MoS was too brooding and dark. That works for Batman, but not Superman. In my opinion anyway.
Singer was trying to bring Superman into the 21st century with relatable angst and intense emotional storylines, and honestly I don't care about your preconceived notions about what Superman should or shouldn't be. Interact with the movie on the movie's own level, don't criticize a film because it didn't fit your definition of what it should be.
shareThat reaction seems seems pretty absurd, though, for him after he had abruptly left her (despite them apparently sleeping together) and the planet and was gone for years, of course she will have been angry and probably would have moved on.
I kind of hate when superheroes cause their own problems and then self-pity.
Sorry but Superman Returns is one of the worst and disappointing movies in cinematic history.
shareThat would actually be Batman v Superman as the most disappointing movie in cinematic history. It's RT score says it all and is much lower than Returns'. Pathetic
shareI'm no big fan of BvS. I thought extended version was an improvement. It is much better than the flacid, and weird, homage-quasi sequel, poor casted, Superman Returns.
share