Superman Returns: Why do you hate it?

[Disheveledamethyst]

I've talked about this in bits and pieces on various other threads, but I'd love to have a more focused discussion. I'll repeat some things I've already said in hopes of consolidating my perspective and I'd really love to hear other people's thoughts on the film. I'm not looking for an argument, but I am looking for a discussion. I know why I love Superman Returns and I'd like very much to hear why many hate it.

1. I was nine in 2000, when X-Men decided that comic book movies were to be the new Western. I've grown up watching a Hollywood crank out comic book and superhero titles faster than I can watch them, watching origin story after origin story and for the most part not really liking the genre. Eleven years after X-Men, I'm getting four comic book movies in a three month period (all of which were origin stories) and am on the verge of witnessing a Spider-man reboot. I've been watching comic book movies my entire coherent life, and can probably pick three that I actually enjoy. At the top of that list is Superman Returns.

2. I'd never watched a Superman movie before this last June. Then I watched Superman: The Movie, Superman II, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, and Superman Returns more or less all in a row. Again, I really don't like comic book movies. I watch them because that's what's hip and found the Superman films to be a very refreshing change from the more contemporary crap I was watching four times a year. I enjoyed all of the Superman films, but I found Superman Returns to be the superior movie.


I often hear a lot of the same complaints:

1. It was like a soap opera. You're right. That's because Superman Returns is a drama. I've heard the same complaint against Ang Lee's Hulk, which I haven't seen, but from Superman Returns I sort of get the impression that people have an expectation of comic book movies always being action flicks. But I've seen a hundred action movies based on comics and there is no genre that fatigues me more. When people think comic book movies, they think The Dark Knight or Spider-man, which is fine. But comic book movies are also Road to Perdition and A History of Violence. Superman Returns is a character drama with action pieces that service the story, not an action movie with character pieces to service the explosions.

2. The action was lame. I watched Superman and Superman Returns right next to each other, and this argument confuses me. Donner's original Superman didn't have a lot of action in it. He saves Lois Lane from a helicopter, catches some nukes, he makes a dam, and that's basically it. Superman Returns has more action than that. He stops a falling airplane, he catches the globe off of the Daily Planet, he throws an island into space and saves a family from a yacht wreck. I really struggle to grasp this argument, because the action pieces in Superman Returns not only seem to have higher stakes (i.e. You see people you care about in danger) but they also seem considerably larger scale (the plane sequence is literally a stand-in for the helicopter sequence).

3. The casting for Lois and Lex was all wrong. I will give whoever makes this point my agreement on terms of Lois Lane. I appreciate Lois in her Returns incarnation, but the characters are not the same. Kate Bosworth plays a very different Lois Lane that services Superman Returns, but it doesn't serve the Lois Lane established in Superman I and II. Margot Kidder gives a better performance. She's funnier. I can see why people prefer her, especially if you met Margot Kidder as Lois Lane twenty-five years before Kate Bosworth. But I certainly believe Kevin Spacey was far better than Gene Hackman. Not only in his performance, but as to how the character is portrayed. Hackman's Luthor was never menacing - just pompous - and he never seemed any more competent than his comic relief side-kicks. (Especially in Superman II). We never see Hackman get angry, or get nervous, or even seem driven. Hackman's Luther felt like my Social Studies teacher asking me questions he already knew the answer to and never actually expecting me to listen.

That's all I'll say for now. I want to hear what other people think or else I'll wind up writing 20 pages of praise like Quentin Tarantino. Will anybody else weigh in their two-cents?

[Gimpy]

Have to say I'll gladly join in the discussion...I Just have to watch the movie again (haven't seen it since it was new on home video) because I don't remember much of it.

Also have to mention that I too share your displeasure with the saturated market of comic book movies. Not every comic book needs a movie but people keep shoving them money so this is what we get. That said, I don't mind the odd one that comes out.

[ddilts399]

I had no problem with the first part of the movie, but Singer ruined the franchise with the plot and closing of the film. Whoever green lit that script at WB should have been sent to work on film projects in Siberia. I dont want to ruin the film in case someone has not seen it, but once Clark sees what he missed while away, the film completely buckles and there was absolutely no way to follow up with a sequel.

[Disheveledamethyst]

I had no problem with the first part of the movie, but Singer ruined the franchise with the plot and closing of the film. Whoever green lit that script at WB should have been sent to work on film projects in Siberia. I dont want to ruin the film in case someone has not seen it, but once Clark sees what he missed while away, the film completely buckles and there was absolutely no way to follow up with a sequel.

Spoiler Warning:

I think...

Superman has always lacked humanity. Not just in the sense of the canon, but in this day in age people have trouble getting into Superman because he's "too perfect". He's morally sound, he's indestructible, and post-Batman Begins audiences are looking for gritty antiheros, not Blue Boy Scouts. I've read and heard over and over that his bible-belt upbringing and Christ-like ways just aren't cinematic or relatable. This is a point demonstrated by the mass appeal achieved by Nolan's The Dark Knight. The basic outlook is that humanity is flawed, and Superman is flawless, thus there is nothing human about him.

In Superman II, we see this remedied by Superman succumbing to temptation and surrendering his powers to be with Lois Lane. He then learns from his mistake and realizes he was selfish, and reclaims his powers. At the end of the film, Superman sacrifices his love for Lois Lane for the better of humanity. On a related note, I consider the Donner cut to be the canon, because it was the intended story for the movie, and it further illustrates the bond between Superman and his father. This bond is very important, especially with Superman Returns in mind.

Bryan Singer makes Superman human by sewing his own desire to be human with the audience's desire to see him as one. In Superman Returns (and as always), Superman is alone. He is the last survivor of a world he'll never know, with only recordings of his father to provide him with answers. Superman is an orphan reading his father's diary. There is no way Superman could ever be human, nor is there any way Clark Kent can ever be Superman, so he is two halves of a person he wishes to be, never allowing them to cross. Physically speaking, two objects cannot occupy the same space, and so Superman's burden is his inability to reconcile the two worlds he inhabits. The world of his father and the world in which he lives.

Introducing a son changes Superman's character dynamically. Superman Returns was the last of a series (more on that note later), and at the end of Superman Returns Superman is an entirely different hero. He now has the bond with humanity he has never had before. He's not alone. He now feel a responsibility for a single person, and himself, that he has never felt before. Yes he is in love with Lois Lane, but it's established in Superman II that they can never be together. The occurrence of his child gives him a new stake in the world and allows him to let go of Lois.

Superman becomes a father, the only figure he has ever known from his own world, and when the movie ends Superman finally the connection to humanity AND Krypton he has always been searching for. Superman finally comes to a complete character arc. Superman is no longer the unchanging sitcom character on a never-ending search for himself. Superman Returns is awful bold in giving Superman what he always wanted, but it provides an end point for a character arc that spans three movies.

Also, pitting Superman's son in the climax actually gives the situation some weight. Superman is indestructible - the man of steel - and the only way to give the action emotion is to give us more characters to worry about than Superman. Singer gives us a whole family, including a son that as an audience we want to see reunited with his true father. Suddenly, everybody has to live so Superman can learn about his son. That, and because they're just normal sympathetic characters who will die if you drown them in a yacht.

Because you can watch Superman fight General Zod for twenty minutes and know the whole time neither of them have the ability to defeat the other. Superman is never in any actual danger, and besides the "My baby!" woman there is nobody else in Superman II who's lives are at stake. Singer introduces us to characters early, who are more than just bystanders, to give the situation potential consequences that a viewer would actually care about.

You mentioned that Superman Returns offers no set up for a sequel. Superman Returns was supposed to end the series. Superman Returns ignores the events of Superman III and IV and serves as a sequel to Superman II while being a love letter to Superman: The Movie. Yes it is a remake of sorts, but it is meant to be a substitute end-cap to form a trilogy. There is no sequel set-up because it's the end. Just like The Dark Knight Rises will be the end.

Also, how does a sequel set-up make for a better movie?

[Zorba]

I really didnt hate or like the movie...but ...After reading this thread, I must say I really do like how much you like it.

Very cool.

[Gimpy]

Have you seen the scrapped opening for the movie included with the Superman Anthology?

Word on the street is the 5min scene cost $10 million but it was determined it didn't fit as an opening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L254X_Mt5YA

Watching it out of context is a "wtf moment".

[eatbrie]

If I could endure watching it again, I would, just to let you know how bad I think it is, but I can't force myself to 2 excruciating hours.

Sorry.

T

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Superman and Superman II: A
Superman III: C-
Superman IV: D-
Superman Returns: C+

Superman Returns is a textbook case of how NOT to revive a series. Absolutely they intended to make several movies with Routh but SR just didn't make enough money.  It was a half-ass remake of Superman I and a lame sequel to Superman II. Now they're totally rebooting the series with Man of Steel.  Hopefully that will be better.

[eatbrie]

Superman and Superman II: A
Superman III: C-
Superman IV: D-
Superman Returns: C+

Right on the money, although I'd probably give Returns a C or C-.  God, just remembering how over the top Spacey was and bad, just plain bad, was Bosworth.  It's no wonder she doesn't have a career.

[eatbrie]

I can't wait for the new one.  With Nolan as producer, I expect a real revival of the series.

T

[Zorba]

Have you seen the scrapped opening for the movie included with the Superman Anthology?

Word on the street is the 5min scene cost $10 million but it was determined it didn't fit as an opening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L254X_Mt5YA

Watching it out of context is a "wtf moment".

I think they actually cut out the best scene they had. That was pretty cool.  

[Zorba]

I can't wait for the new one.  With Nolan as producer, I expect a real revival of the series.

T

Same here. Nolan is my guy 

[Gimpy]

Same here. Nolan is my guy 

Damn Nolan fanboys. I hate the guy.

[Zorba]

Damn Nolan fanboys. I hate the guy.

Fanboy?

Im 45 freaking years old.

Age doesnt matter. Yes. I am an older fanboy.

Go Nolan Go! 

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

I think they actually cut out the best scene they had. That was pretty cool.  

Cool scene but too much of a downer to start the movie.  Maybe they could have reinserted it as a "dream" scene or flashback in the middle of the movie.

[Gimpy]

The funny part about that cut opening is that I find the human self of SUPERMAN more believable than him flying around in some kind of crystal thing to another planet that breaks up and smashes into him.

[eatbrie]

Damn Nolan fanboys. I hate the guy.

Do you hate him because he makes popcorn movies too smart for you?

T

[Gimpy]

Do you hate him because he makes popcorn movies too smart for you?

T

HAHA funny. His movies aren't smart enough to entertain me. I'll admit I was actually looking forward to a Nolan movie once...Inception. All the hype surrounding it and talk of "minds being blown" and then I walked out of the theater severely disappointed because society's definition of "mind blowing" is actually just ADD. If you paid attention during that movie it was more than easy to follow.

I can respect what he does but I severely dislike his movies. Batman was my favorite superhero before he turned it into the trash that it is now.

So insulting my intelligence given that you know absolutely NOTHING about me and base it on the fact that I just don't like a director shows what kind of ad hominem loving goofball you are. The kind of person I wish not to waste time associating with.

[Zorba]

Batman was my favorite superhero before he turned it into the trash that it is now.

Owie!

 

Batman is also my favorite and I see it exactly the opposite. I see Nolan as fixing the trash that Schumacher created.

So we do have one thing in common. One out of two aint bad 

[Zorba]

Cool scene but too much of a downer to start the movie.  Maybe they could have reinserted it as a "dream" scene or flashback in the middle of the movie.

Good point. Seems like a waste of good material. Too bad you were not in charge of the project.   

[eatbrie]

So insulting my intelligence given that you know absolutely NOTHING about me and base it on the fact that I just don't like a director shows what kind of ad hominem loving goofball you are. The kind of person I wish not to waste time associating with.

Exactly the kind of answer I expected.  

Maybe you should just leave this forum since I run it.  It's the best way not to associate with me.

T

[Ari]

HAHA funny. His movies aren't smart enough to entertain me. I'll admit I was actually looking forward to a Nolan movie once...Inception. All the hype surrounding it and talk of "minds being blown" and then I walked out of the theater severely disappointed because society's definition of "mind blowing" is actually just ADD. If you paid attention during that movie it was more than easy to follow.

Have to agree with Gimpstermon on this, I fail to see how this film was clever.

But lease Gimpy-B-baby, don't insult Mr Cheese, like cheese, he melts, and he is BRIE! That melts at room temperature! But when he is FRIED... LOOK OUT!

[kovacs01]

His movies aren't smart enough to entertain me.

So insulting my intelligence given that you know absolutely NOTHING about me and base it on the fact that I just don't like a director shows what kind of ad hominem loving goofball you are. The kind of person I wish not to waste time associating with.

I know a little about you.......that you are asking for an authentication for an Avatar advance.  So, I would assume you are an Avatar fan?  So Nolan's films are not smart enough to entertain you, but Avatar is???  I guess there's nothing wrong with that.  To each his own, but it seems rather backwards to me.

[eatbrie]

But lease Gimpy-B-baby, don't insult Mr Cheese, like cheese, he melts, and he is BRIE! That melts at room temperature! But when he is FRIED... LOOK OUT!

 

[Disheveledamethyst]

Have you seen the scrapped opening for the movie included with the Superman Anthology?

Word on the street is the 5min scene cost $10 million but it was determined it didn't fit as an opening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L254X_Mt5YA

Watching it out of context is a "wtf moment".

I did see that opening. I didn't think it worked at all, not even a little bit, and I think it says a lot about Singer as a director to waste 10m on a scene that I can't imagine ever seemed to fit in the first place. At least it makes a good extra on the Blu-Ray. The whole thing just feels spooky and anonymous. Without the context of the Donner films the scene makes no sense.

Superman and Superman II: A
Superman III: C-
Superman IV: D-
Superman Returns: C+

I didn't watch Superman III or IV. I've been told repeatedly that there is no benefit to watching them. I've heard them compared to Batman & Robin and Batman Forever. So like Burton's Batman, I watched the two good ones and moved on.

While on the subject of Batman, I'll say that I prefer Burton's Batman movies over Batman Begins, but I think The Dark Knight is phenomenal. Burton's movies had better sets and make-up and arguably better performances. I still liked Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight fixed literally all of my complaints against the film, so I have to give Nolan my applause.

And Inception was incredible.

I would say that Superman: The Movie was probably more of a marvel in 1978. I can really appreciate the groundbreaking special effects and Superman marks the first attempt to take something as "silly" as a comic book and treat it with dignity (Superman vs. The Mole Men, anyone?). Even thirty years later, Superman: The Movie hides its age triumphantly, but its impact on a viewer is severely diminished. There's nothing stopping the modern movie goer from "believing a man can fly". So what might strike you as an "A" movie only strikes me as a "B".

So I give Superman: The Movie a solid and admirable B, mainly because I consider it to have been outdone in Superman Returns.

Superman II is a whole 'nother situation entirely. Richard Lester's cut of Superman II bordered on moronic. I had no interest in watching the Donner cut until I disliked the Lester cut so whole-heartedly. The seriousness that brought dignity to Superman I was stripped away in favor of slapstick comedy. The glaring plot hole as to how Superman gets his powers back is completely unforgivable - I don't understand how an audience could ever overlook that.

"Superman, you will never get your powers back if you do this."
"Actually never mind, you can go get them back off-screen without a world of explanation."

The removal of Jor-El (which I understand was Brando's own fault) also hurts the story, especially with Superman Returns in mind. A major piece of Superman's character is his lack of guidance and the fact that with all his powers he could do nothing to save his Earth father and will never meet his birth father. Lester's Superman II takes away this entire dramatic aspect (even if it's Brando's fault) and the movie suffers as a result.

That, and what was with the logo-throwing nonsense?

I give Lester's cut of Superman II an embarrassing D, and that's only because 49% of it is still Donner's good stuff.

The Donner Cut of Superman II was fantastic. Better than Superman I and a hundred times better than Lester's Superman II. The father is back, the plot-hole is gone, there's no more screwball comedy and we have ourselves an excellent movie.

Superman I: B
Superman II: D
Donner's Superman II: A
Superman Returns: A+