Isn't it amazing? - Superman Returns (2006) Discussion

[–] jakubmike 8 years ago

You know, there is something to this, after premiere I was glad but not very enthusiastic, it was a good movie but nothing to fawn about.
After Man of Steel it suddenly turn into a great movie
And now after Batman v Superman I ranked Superman Returns among truly visionary movies, the last flicker of hope for DC.
So... yes, you are right, one or two more and I will write a petition to place it in a sealed vault so it can survive meteor strike and be our legacy to next dominant species on the planet

reply

[–] thevintagecola 8 years ago

you're right, friend 

with every new Superman movie by Zack Snyder, Warner just succeeds at making themselves look more stupid

reply

[–] Twisted-Minds 8 years ago

I still prefer Zack's version, even if I like this movie as well.

But I do Wonder why people always expect things to be the same...?

Man of steel was a nice modernization of Superman.

Superman Returns was IMO in the same vein as Superman 1 and 2. Don't get me wrong, it's fun...The musical theme is awesome and this is my favourite Clark (Reeves) but it was too much the same when Returns came out, it was a way of doing Superman that belonged in the past.

IMO it's more interesting to have different takes, different interprétations.

So...I'm glad this way of doing Superman is over...now we have The Snyder/Cavill wich is more serious and action driven wich I like a lot

And the future will bring something else wich I'll probably enjoy too.

reply

[–] thevintagecola 8 years ago

it's cool that you like Man of Steel but I didn't see it as modernized. It stepped away from a lot of the material in the comics as well so it would be considered a different take which I agree with. And yet it still used Zod and later Luthor in its subsequent sequel. All villains that people have already seen before.

There's really nothing outdated about a guy trying to do what he thinks is right. This film tried to update the character and bring him into the 21st century by toning it down and getting rid of that 70s cheerfulness that would have actually dated the character. The result was Returns, which people complained about being too dark, too brooding, and too dull in 2006.

Warner's answer to the complaints of Superman Returns being too dark, too brooding, and too dull was to take the first two complaints and do it much harder, reuse Zod from Superman II instead of a new villain, and instill lots of action sequences into it.

Snyder's film tries to bring up some thoughtful topics but never even concludes them, instead sacrificing in depth exploration of political threads and even character development for over extended dick punching action sequences and cheap exposition. In the sequel he does the same thing. It's like asking a really profound question to get the audience's attention and then asking that same profound question over and over again throughout the film instead of really discussing it and just going to the action pieces and end when the viewer is still waiting for the question to be answered and mulled over.

reply

[–] justKryptonite 8 years ago

People like things to stay the same. Also some people started with SR as their first Superman film so it's the movie they want to see return even though all it was was a Reeves film with out him in it. The reason Returns didn't get another film was because the story was just not there, not the color of the costume or because the castings were off and not even really just because it was a super hero movie without action. To me it was the utter train wreck of the story.

reply

[–] thevintagecola 8 years ago

You probably weren't around when Returns came out but I was on the boards under a different name and in 2006 people were bitching about stupid things like the colors being too dark, superman being too serious, the fact he had sex out of wedlock, and the lack of a better final battle. Look up the old reviews if you don't believe me 

The fact is the movie was killed due to the writers' strike and that Superman didn't get to punch things. They even had Routh attached to a reboot all the way up to 2010/2011. Every other complaint that came after was just made after the fact by people who were mad.

reply

[–] justKryptonite 8 years ago

I never said that people didn't complain about those things I said I don't think that is why the film didn't get a sequel. To me the only plausible reason is the story and casting was so bad that it just was not gonna happen. Obviously the costume being dark and the mood being "brooding" didn't come into play with stopping the second movie because they did both of those things in MOS. I think someone else on this board made a good point, this movie could have maybe played in the very early 90s at the latest, but by 2006 fans had seen better and more modern stories about Superman and CK on TV than they did when it came to SR.

reply

[–] thevintagecola 8 years ago

Back in 2006 no one wanted to see a grim Superman film. Yes, this movie was considered "grim" back then as hard as it is to believe now. It's why it makes it ten times funnier that Zack Snyder took the original complaints and shoved them through his reboot about twice as hard. All he did was mask the problem by making Superman have bigger muscles. Warner is just retarded at doing anything but Batman. People were expecting to see a Superman film along the lines of Smallville which at the time had a balance of some seriousness but was more lighthearted. Marvel really wasn't a thing at this time until 2009/2010. The only big thing that audiences were still reeling from was the Raimi Spider-man sequel that had been out a year prior.

reply

[–] justKryptonite 8 years ago

I think most people are willing to have a charater and movie franchise grow and change. It needed to be more modern and to point out the grim or dark nature of this film as the number one problem or as the reason for it not getting a sequel is just off the mark. To me it's obvious that the story was what killed as equal. As I stated before MOS is dark, BvS is dark and yet both are still very much Superman movies. You can't just keep repeating the 70s Superman and Clark Kent because
that's what came first. In 10 years we may have a very different Superman than we have now and I will probably still be a fan because his core message never changes.

reply

[–] thevintagecola 8 years ago

I think most people are willing to have a charater and movie franchise grow and change.

If it's done right, sure. But most of the complaints of the Superman films of right now and this one ten years ago remain the same.

It needed to be more modern and to point out the grim or dark nature of this film as the number one problem or as the reason for it not getting a sequel is just off the mark.

It really isn't because that's the number one thing people were bitching about back then. You obviously weren't around on these boards back then but I was and under a different user name. The loudest complaints were that of the old 1978 Superman fans bitching about how Superman was portrayed as a flawed character who had sex out of wedlock. If you really think the complaints of MOS and BvS are stupid now then you didn't see and live through the sh*t storm that older fans threw up back in 2006. People were on here specifically to complain about how Clark shared a beer with Jimmy and how that wasn't a good influence to a younger audience. It was either that or "why wasn't this movie more like the show Smallville?" or "why wasn't this one more funny??"

And people complained about Superman having a kid because of that fat ass Kevin Smith's movie Mallrats that had his insufferable main character explain to his friend that Superman and Lois couldn't possibly have progeny because his cumshot would probably rip a hole through her back which many of Smith's retarded fans mistook as official DC lore for a long time. What's even more ironic is that the comics are currently introducing Superman and Lois' son in a new ongoing.

MOS is dark, BvS is dark and yet both are still very much Superman movies

that's pretty much up in the air at this point and decided by an unbiased audience who aren't currently posting on these imdb boards or other forums.

You can't just keep repeating the 70s Superman and Clark Kent because
that's what came first.

I don't know where I said that they should but people want a more balanced film that leaves Zack Snyder's brooding to Batman.

In 10 years we may have a very different Superman than we have now

one can only hope.

reply

[–] justKryptonite 8 years ago

Okay, again I'm not saying that the number one complaint on these boards weren't about how dark the movie was. I'm saying that those complaints didn't matter to the people who squashed the SR sequel. And the reason most hated the kid was probably because Superman had erased her memory and so she would have not known how she had become pregnant. She then had Richard raising him while Superman went on a mission that in most ways never made sense! I feel as if when I hear someone not being able to get over the death of this film it's the same thing as saying a movie shouldn't be any different than the 70s ones because this movie was just a carbon copy of the old ones. I think most Superman fans have shown that they have embraced the MOS Superman for now as shown by the enormous excitement of many fans who like to see what the newest movie will bring. I do agree that Zack Snyder is annoying and I wish it would have been someone else who had gotten the franchise but I like him over what Singer did because at least he tried to create his own vision for this Superman instead of just repeating someone else's. Also the boards of superhero movies are 99 percent Trolls when the movie first comes out so I would ignore all of the "retarded" comments that you read.

reply

[–] thevintagecola 8 years ago

most hated the kid was probably because Superman had erased her memory and so she would have not known how she had become pregnant. She then had Richard raising him while

This is actually a funny complaint because the film itself debunks that her pregnancy was due to the one night stand in Superman II. Superman and Lois had a continued relationship even after the events of Zod in II. It's apparent because when Superman comes back he naively expects to pick up that particular relationship from where they left off. Lois confirms they had a relationship before he left in their roof top interview and tells him that people, implying specifically her, had moved on. Superman Returns is officially said to be a continuation of Donner's Superman II and not Lester's. Whereas in Lester's version Superman erases Lois' memory with a stupid kiss and completely ENDS their relationship FOR GOOD moving forward as he's dating other people by III & IV, in Donner's true ending Clark does not end their relationship and instead prevents he and Lois from ever sleeping together through a series of 70s esque silliness and deus ex machina.

If Returns had been a true continuation to the theatrical Superman II and not Donner's then the titular hero would not have tried to mack game on Lois seeing as how he was the one who ended their relationship officially in Lester's sequel only.

Further proof is the holograms in Lester's Superman II and Donner's true sequel. Lester's fortress of solitude had Superman's mother guide him through the events of II and not Jor-El. In Donner's cut, Jor-El is still the main and only guidance that Superman has access to.

reply

[–] justKryptonite 8 years ago

See you've just proven the whole point! The movie is so nebulous about when and how she became pregnant and where this movie falls that there are all of these holes and things that don't work out with how the characters whould react. If what you are saying was true than Superman has a relationship with Lois without revealing he is CK? Then he just takes off after said relationship because of some maybe about a dead planet?! You said that a problem in BvS was that the Death of Superman didn't work because they had not built the charater up enough. But in SR we don't know where Rouths Superman begins and Reeves ends. They didn't write a whole story, just a movie with barely any dialogue to explain all of the odd story points. And Lois acts like she is mad at Superman but to me she is not treating him as if she had been with at one point and the way she reacts to her son and the piano doesn't show her reaction as if she had thought it could have been his child.

reply

[–] thevintagecola 8 years ago

to be fair it's not a plot hole when it's explained in the film. It's apparent they were in a relationship before he left and he was obviously wrong for leaving the way he did. You don't even need to know it connects to which particular version of a 70s sequel because it already implies they were together before he took off. This film takes place in medias res and it's not an origin.

in SR we don't know where Rouths Superman begins and Reeves ends

You do though. After returning, Superman and Clark are both changed due to five years passing. The film points out that Clark thinks Lois has changed from when he last left her when he also fails to see that the world doesn't stop for him nor does it wait for him either.

You said that a problem in BvS was that the Death of Superman didn't work because they had not built the charater up enough.

MOS was a chance for people to get to know Clark instead of the stoic and quiet Superman that people complain about. Instead he's still stoic and even more quiet in the reboot than he was in the previous film. MOS did not allow Clark to have his 'moments' and instead had Lois and everyone else around him 'speak for him' and tell you how much of a great guy he is. BvS does the same thing. Superman could have had a great and defining moment during the senate scene that explains himself to that universe and sets him up as a great character but it's like Zack Snyder likes to blue ball Superman fans by just having him pose and frown and choosing to give all the profound and intelligent dialogue to Batman or Lois Lane. Superman gets overshadowed by his supporting cast and his only memorable words to an audience more invested in Bruce Wayne by the end of the movie is a constipated shout of "Save Martha"

Look, I understand Returns wasn't everyone's cup of tea due to the lack of action but Zack Snyder has managed to somehow make Superman even less of a person by relegating him to looking intimidating or averagely heroic and not giving him many words to carry himself. Superman should really be what Captain America is to Marvel in their cinematic universe but he's not. The thing that was a plus for Brandon Routh in a Superman film that equally split audiences is that he does in fact separate Superman from Clark Kent and he shined with the little Clark moments he was given with his subtle comedic timing.

reply

[–] TRhett 8 years ago

Folks . . . this man (I'm assuming) has it figured out. Saved me a lot of typing. Like good literature, the Superman ethos is not supposed to be static (like the Catholic Church or something). It's supposed to be adaptable, flexible, and able to change and apply to the times, while retaining some universal themes.
That said - and keeping in mind his comments about how ridiculous it is to complain about Clark Kent drinking a beer in this day and age - I will admit that this was perhaps a bit TOO "traditionalist" for today's audience. I actually remember that Kevin Smith riff in which he ranted about how "boring" this film was (in other words, it wasn't 3 hours of constant, mind-numbing crashes, explosions, and destruction like "Transformers") - then launches into a story about how Bruce Willis is such an -sshole, he basically left Hollywood after the filming of some Bruce Willis cop flop.
I actually thought Routh made a pretty good Superman AND Clark Kent (although, as someone else said, he did look a little TOO much like Christopher Reeve - it was a little distracting). But as for Lois, her wardrobe and overall styling was obviously designed to make her look as dowdy and unattractive as you could possibly make Kate Bosworth (not to mention that she might need an "intervention" in the eating disorder department - everything kind of hung off her like a hanger). It was just hard to feel anything for her character. And while setting up a love triangle in which Superman is one of the corners is not really "fair," I could have enjoyed an old-fashioned story like that for what it was, but then the third act lurches into the old "evil genius out to destroy the world with some ridiculous doomsday device" cliche . . . and from there it drags to an unsatisfying conclusion. So you didn't really know what to make of it as a whole (except that they were obviously setting up a sequel . . . which never happened).
One more thing . . . WTH happened to Zack Snyder? He showed so much promise with "Dawn of the Dead," but everything since then seems to be just COMPLETELY overwrought and silly.

I did very much like Lex Luthor's yacht, however . . .

reply

[–] justKryptonite 8 years ago

The suit was pretty underwhelming! At the time I thought it was okay, nothing that was that great or that horrible. Now though I see how horrible the cape was, way, way too short and looks like it's made of plastic. And I always hated the S being so small. But it was really once I saw the MOS costume that I realized the SR one was really pretty unimaginative.

reply

[–] Benjatron_Gear_Solid 8 years ago

I disagree. This movie has never grown on me. I don't think it's a terrible movie I honestly just haven't been able to think of it as a great movie. I loved man of steel and to me BvS gets better and better after every viewing. That's my unpopular opinion but there it is.

reply

[–] GhostWriterX 8 years ago

Yeah, not really.
Superman Returns is still a mediocre movie, one that still thinks its the 80s and yet doesn't have the heart of the first film, or even the second film, which was campier but still kind of enjoyable. Superman Returns is boring, cheesy and uninspired, with underpar performances from everyone, except Kevin Spacey who gives an over-the-top performance that today, I suppose is preferable to Eisenberg's, but otherwise not what the actor is fully capable of. The only things I can praise this movie for is the music, which they brought back from the older films just slightly updated, and the plane scene, which I'll admit is always cool. But that's it.
WB can't seem to make a good Superman movie to save their lives, it seems Batman is their lifeboat, their security blanket, and the only character they'll put any real effort into until he's run to the ground, in which case they'd just reboot him.

"How would you feel about life if Death was your older sister?"

reply

[–] thevintagecola 8 years ago

It didn't feel like an 80s movie by a long shot.

Even though the characters are supposed to be one in the same as the 70s film they really didn't come across as that in the 06 movie despite some repeated lines.

If you compare the main cast of 78 and 06 side by side performance wise they're really not the same characters even though they're supposed to be. Reeve's Clark and Superman is very different from Routh's. Same with Hackman's cartoony and mischevious Lex Luthor when compared with Spacey's more nefarious and toned down version. Hackman's Lex put a kryptonite necklace on Superman and giggled while Spacey's version straight up shanked the guy and tried to murder him. I mean there is an obvious and more subtle difference in each of the character's personalities in the 06 version.

reply

[–] richopp 8 years ago

SR is a very good film.

Period.

reply

[–] TRhett 8 years ago

SR is a very good film. Period.

I don't usually give unsolicited advice, but you really should NEVER end an OPINION with the word "Period."

"Parker Posey's campy, over-the-top characters are distracting and irritating. Period."

See?

The proper way to do it is to state your opinion, then back it up. With something more substantive than the word "Period."

reply

[–] richopp 8 years ago

Mea culpa, @TRhett. My attitude when I typed it was that I was pretty exasperated at all the negative comments on what was, in fact, a pretty good Superman film when compared to all Superman films and the TV show, which I saw and enjoyed when it was first broadcast.

Evidently I should not comment when I am exasperated, and I will try not to.

Period. (Just kidding...!)

Cheers,

richopp

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

I would say that about most of the superhero movies released in the last decade. Not just Snyder's.

reply