Bryan Singer should stay the hell away from the "Superman" franchise.

[William Munny]

When someone asks me what my least favorite film is, I think long and hard, and I respond with a lengthy diatribe about "Superman Returns".

The latest Steven Seagal STV opus is probably worse, but then again it didn't carry the enormous responsibility of the "Superman" name. "Superman Returns" is a dull picture, one so painfully boring and lacking in human emotion that it accomplishes the near-impossible: under the guiding hand of Bryan Singer, it actually makes Superman unlikable. Which is a shame, because with its dark theme (Superman existing in a world that doesn't need / believe in Superman), "Returns" could have been a modern masterpiece.

Let's get one thing straight: Brandon Routh and his soap-opera characterization kill the film. There are plastic action figures with more depth and range of emotion. I personally can't act my way out of a paper bag, but if I looked like a synthetically manufactured Christopher Reeve would Singer have cast me? In Routh's defense, he's not given much to work with. Singer's Superman is one who stares pensively: at the horizon, at Lois, at the camera. And he occasionally lifts things.

It's not his movie anyway. It's Lois Lane's. As played by Kate Bosworth, Lois is cold, conniving and fatally unlikable. The once lovely Bosworth is transformed into a hideous, amorphic brunette who lacks all of the warmth and humor of Margot Kidder's Lane. Singer paints her as so vindictive and phsyically angular that I half expected her to sprout claws. And she's certainly got her share of screen time: the film could have easily been called "Lois Lane Returns", and it would have been the same bland downer it is now.

Back to Singer. While his desire to craft a sequel to the classic Donner pictures is certainly a nice ploy for fanboy goodwill, it was wholly uneccesary. Devin at CHUD explains:

If ever there was a comic book character who could just be plopped into the middle of a high-octane movie, it's Superman. Everybody knows his origin, everybody knows his powers and his situation. There are children in Darfur who can't get food in their bellies but who know that Clark Kent works at the Daily Planet and is secretly Superman. The biggest mistake Singer made was believing he needed to re-introduce the character in a boring, slow film.

Well then, why not make "Superman Returns" in the spirit of Donner's original classics? The answer, unfortunately, is that Singer doesn't have the wit or the intelligence or the heart required to bring that spirit to screen. But the critics (76% of them, to be precise*) still like Singer, what with Kevin Spacey and all that sophisticted Christ imagery in the film (fuck you, Richard Corliss and TIME). Singer doesn't deserve Spacey. And Routh's emo Superman, more concerned with wooing Lois than with the woes of the collective world, certainly isn't Christ-like. By the way. does anyone remember the scene where Superman throws the baseball way out of his dog's reach, and the poor dog is sitting there with a sad look on his face? I wanted to jump through the screen and punch Routh.

I probably wouldn't be losing my shit now if Warner Bros. wasn't allowing Bryan Singer to make ANOTHER Superman film, and if they hadn't announced publicly that "Returns" has grossed $200 million. It's fucking November. Is "Superman Returns" even playing anywhere in the country? C'mon, Warner Bros. Don't skeet on my face and tell me it's snowing. Wipe your asses with your Australian tax cuts and call a failure a failure.

I despise Bryan Singer. I despise him for the hack that he is, and I despise him for being given the resources for a second chance. He should creatively retire to a hole with the entire team behind "Superman Returns". If not a hole, than they should at least go away and make a small movie, something inconsequential, something not Superman.

*There was one definite outlier: Roger Ebert.

Read his generous two-star review here: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/REVIEWS/60606009/1023

[Duke Nukem]

I will be the first of many to disagree. I felt that..."Superman Returns" was fantastic...that Brandon Routh was a good replacement...that Lois's kid subplot was surprisingly and movingly well-handled...that Lex Luthor's ultimate plan to stop Superman was pure genius...and also that this will be one of the most UNDERRATED movies of 2006. One other thing...spoilers ahead.

































WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!































I already said that the super kid subplot was surprisingly and movingly well-handled. Well, I know what many are thinking...Superboy? If this movie does re-start the franchise, the Superboy subplot will best be handled as small subplots along the new sequels until Superkid has grown up into a man and acquired his full powers. Until then, who knows what they can do with the storyline. But otherwise, Super kid has to stay low key for a while to handle the future storyline as well as possible.










































SPOILERS OVER!























So, there.

[Cronos]

i agree with Duke Nukem

although have re-watched X-Men 2 today i still wish he had stayed on for part 3 :(

[bigred760]

I wasn't thrilled by Superman Returns, but I thought it was alright (7/10 I believe). And I think even if I didn't like a movie, most people deserve a second chance. "Live and learn" and all that. I think X2 is very superior to X-Men, so why couldn't a second Superman movie be better than Returns. I think Singer has a very good mind for comic book movies, and he made an excellent thriller called The Usual Suspects. While I wish he would've stuck with the X-Men franchise, he made Superman a money-making franchise again.

[Derek237]

I liked it. It made me wish I were a kid again, and that I would get the DVD for Christmas and watch it on a Christmas afternoon.

Don't know why.

[vesaker]

Oh come on this movie was crap! i agree with every point William made in his post. Superman was not an interesting movie at all, not to mention they had him doing stuff that even in his own universe he couldn't do.

Now i want everyone to know the unlike Willaim i don't even like Superman to begin with.... imo he's a wanker. His powers are the ONLY thing he's got gonig for him and EVERYONE already knows how to get around the powers. I meen you say "well you gotta find some Kryptonite first" and i would say "well they seem to do it often enough so i doubt its that hard to come by".

Superman can't fight for shit, he hits things and simply cause he has incredbile strenth most things he hits get destroyed so ppl think he's good. Take away his powers with good ol' Kryptonite and he's helpless

****sopilers*****

Heh infact the only scene i liked in that whole craptacular movie was the one where he's on the Kryptonite island and is getting the shit kicked out of him by thugs like the little bitch he is.

Which brings me to another point, HOW THE HELL DID HE LIFT THAT DAMN ISLAND WHEN HE STILL HAD A PEICE OF KRYPTONITE STILL STUCK IN HIM!?!?!?! It makes no sense at all, i meen i think he would have had a tuff time lifting this island if there was no Kyptonite around him but he some how does it with a peice still jammed into his body.... rediculous.

And the fact that Superman had a kid with Lois is equally rediculous, i meen am i the only one that remebers Broddy and T.C's conversation in Mall Rats about the subject?? And how is that (theortically of course since this is fiction we are talking about) that a being from a system with a Red Sun be biologically comaptible with a being from a system with a Yellow Sun (being thats how the wanker gets his powers to begin with)?

And finally this movie sucked cause the whole plot was just Superman stopping Lex Luther's newest evil plot. I meen come on even if you have to invent a new charater i want to see Superman throw down with someone in true smash em up style. I meen come on lets see some crazy hits, some property damage, something. And its not like we don't have the computer animation tech to pull something like that off.

All in all this movie robbed me of 2 hours and 34 minutes of my life, and although no one made me pay my $11.75 to see this movie i still hope Singer gets a horrible itch in his balls whenever someone curses his name ;)

[adamjohnson]

I'm PRETTY sure he's attached to it in SOME way already.

Although I could be mistaken.

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

Originally posted by adamjohnson
I'm PRETTY sure he's attached to it in SOME way already.

Although I could be mistaken.

Singer did in fact just sign a deal to make the next film. :)

[William Munny]

Originally posted by vesaker
Now i want everyone to know the unlike Willaim i don't even like Superman to begin with.... imo he's a wanker. His powers are the ONLY thing he's got gonig for him and EVERYONE already knows how to get around the powers.


I think you're saying that it takes real work to bring a likable Superman to screen. Christopher Reeve had the good humor to let the audience know he was in on the joke, yet he had a strong humanity about him that made you believe in what he was doing on-screen. He was a natural, a classically trained actor with a rock-solid physique to boot.

Brandon Routh is a terrible, terrible actor, one with little natural ability or emotional humanity, and in "Superman Returns" he's made only worse by a boring, inept script and by Singer's snail-paced direction.

The ONLY part of the film that I enjoyed was the bank robbery sequence. It felt like something culled from 80's action cinema, what with the cops swarming the skyscraper, the chain gun, etc. I remember the audience cheering loudly at this part, then the cheers quickly fading as Singer transitioned back to Lex's "plot", to Lois' relationship woes, all with little dramatic skill.

The entirety of "Superman Returns" is like this: a long, laborous punishment on an audience who only wants to believe in a man who can fly again.

[Tyler_Durden_208]

One of my favorite movies of the year. I'm not gonna say you're wrong, as I can see why people wouldn't like it, but I thought it was great and I for one can't wait to see where Singer goes next, especially seeing how much better he got with X2.

[vesaker]

Originally posted by William Munny
The ONLY part of the film that I enjoyed was the bank robbery sequence. It felt like something culled from 80's action cinema, what with the cops swarming the skyscraper, the chain gun, etc.

Why the hell was there a crazy big Chain gun ontop of that bloody bank to begin with?? I meen that scene was pretty cool what with the close up no the bullet in the eye thing but that whole scene i remeber asking myself "why the hell is that Gun even there?"

Oh and i agree that its a tuff job to bring any well know character to a different medium then it originated in, and Reeve was good..... but the character Super Man is still a wanker in my eyes lol, I'm more of a Spider Man (or even a Marvel over DC, although Batman does kick ass) person myself but that rant is for a whole different msg board ;)

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

Originally posted by vesaker
Why the hell was there a crazy big Chain gun ontop of that bloody bank to begin with?? I meen that scene was pretty cool what with the close up no the bullet in the eye thing but that whole scene i remeber asking myself "why the hell is that Gun even there?"



Ummm...it's not like the bank itself has a gun on the roof. The robbers brought it with them to use against the cops that were inevitably going to try to stop them.

[vesaker]

Originally posted by Mr. Fred Krueger
Ummm...it's not like the bank itself has a gun on the roof. The robbers brought it with them to use against the cops that were inevitably going to try to stop them.

well i figured they brought it there, i'm not an idiot although i suppose i could have been more clear. What i meant was why was it there as in "how the hell did they get it there?"

I meen i can't quite remeber if there was a helicopter for them or something but even if there was that thing must have weighed a ton or 2 and if these thugs could afford that Gun and a helicopter to move it around in why are they hitting a bank when i'm sure theres probably more lucrative and practical uses for those 2 items....... although i can't seem to really think of any but you know what i meen.

And just to be clear what i meen is that it was a berley believeable scene (i know its fiction but things like physics and gravity/weight exist in fiction too) for nothing else then showing how tuff Super Man is which could have been done in a ton of better ways (like say having him fight some cool baddie or something)

oh and PS..... Super Mans a wanker (just need to get that in every post about this subject :p)

[bigred760]

Originally posted by vesaker
Which brings me to another point, HOW THE HELL DID HE LIFT THAT DAMN ISLAND WHEN HE STILL HAD A PEICE OF KRYPTONITE STILL STUCK IN HIM!?!?!?! It makes no sense at all, i meen i think he would have had a tuff time lifting this island if there was no Kyptonite around him but he some how does it with a peice still jammed into his body.... rediculous.

Well, the kryptonite was removed out of his body by Lois when they found him in the water. But nevertheless, him lifting an island made of Kryptonite is a bit much and is one of the few things that bothered me about the movie.

And the fact that Superman had a kid with Lois is equally rediculous, i meen am i the only one that remebers Broddy and T.C's conversation in Mall Rats about the subject?? And how is that (theortically of course since this is fiction we are talking about) that a being from a system with a Red Sun be biologically comaptible with a being from a system with a Yellow Sun (being thats how the wanker gets his powers to begin with)?

You're basing your argument that Superman can't have kids with a human on Mallrats? Like you said, it's fiction. You're having problems with this guy knocking up a human, but apparently have no problem that he can fly, shoot fire out of his eyes, stop bullets with his eye, and "leap tall buildings in a single bound." It's a movie for crying out loud - like you said: fiction. I'm not focusing on the biological aspects of the movie's hero. And what do the respective systems' suns have anything to do with it? The yellow sun gives him unlimited powers, not the inability to reproduce.

And finally this movie sucked cause the whole plot was just Superman stopping Lex Luther's newest evil plot. I meen come on even if you have to invent a new charater i want to see Superman throw down with someone in true smash em up style. I meen come on lets see some crazy hits, some property damage, something. And its not like we don't have the computer animation tech to pull something like that off.


Well the plot was more like Superman getting back into the good graces of Lois and the rest of the planet. He didn't know about Lex's plot until the planet started shaking every which way. Part of the plot was Luthor trying to kill the Man of Steel, but Superman stopping him was the last act of the movie.

And I believe Singer is planning a more smash 'em up movie for the sequel.

[chinton]

I must say I'm completely and utterly surprised. I mean I wasn't enthralled by the movie (and Louis Lane is a retard), but I didn't realize anyone would actively despise it. I thought it was entertaining enough with Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey stealing all the scenes.

[vesaker]

Originally posted by bigred760
Well, the kryptonite was removed out of his body by Lois when they found him in the water. But nevertheless, him lifting an island made of Kryptonite is a bit much and is one of the few things that bothered me about the movie.

Ok obviously you don't remeber the part where they have him in the hospital afterwards and are trying to revive him and find a peice still in him.


Originally posted by bigred760
You're basing your argument that Superman can't have kids with a human on Mallrats? Like you said, it's fiction. You're having problems with this guy knocking up a human, but apparently have no problem that he can fly, shoot fire out of his eyes, stop bullets with his eye, and "leap tall buildings in a single bound." It's a movie for crying out loud - like you said: fiction. I'm not focusing on the biological aspects of the movie's hero. And what do the respective systems' suns have anything to do with it? The yellow sun gives him unlimited powers, not the inability to reproduce.

Ok what i'm trying to say is that Supermans powers HAVE been biologically explained and that is why in Mallrats (and i know its a silly movie but the points he makes are good ones) Brody goes on his rant about how it "shouldn't" be possible. And since his powers have been scientifically explained (within the fiction ofcourse) and that he is a being from a different system with a different sun which gives off different radiation enough to give Superman his power while in our system, then why woud you just assume they are biologically compatible? I meen sure he looks the same but i can garentee his genetics would be quite different.

Originally posted by bigred760
Well the plot was more like Superman getting back into the good graces of Lois and the rest of the planet. He didn't know about Lex's plot until the planet started shaking every which way. Part of the plot was Luthor trying to kill the Man of Steel, but Superman stopping him was the last act of the movie.

Again if you haven't figured it out yet the plot was LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME. If i want thoughtful dramatic alien/human tention and him trying to fit in and that crap i would watch the original movies since that what they had to rely on (no having the special effects of today) to make the movie good.

This time around (like william said) there should have been no boring reintroducing of the character. I personally believe that this should have been a much more of a smash'm up since you can go see lots of movies that have similar plots to this one.... I wanna see Sup's SMASH SHIT UP just like i want o see the Hulk SMASH SHIT UP (although that movie was bad too) i don't want to see his inner anguish and termoil and all that jazz for most of the mvoie. That stuff should be the sub plot to things like the action in these movies.

Oh and Luther trying to kill super man.... what else is new??

[poopontheshoes7]

Well, I can see why you want a more smash em up Superman flick, but the character of Superman really isnt the kind of guy to cause Collateral damage unless he has to like in Superman 2 :)

[William Munny]

Originally posted by vesaker
i don't want to see his inner anguish and termoil and all that jazz for most of the mvoie.


Not to disagree with you, but I would enjoy seeing Superman's inner anguish expressed on screen. It's just that Bryan Singer is so deaf to on-screen human emotion that he can't for the life of him convey the emotional ongoings of his characters. His CGI department, for example, can craft a scene of Supes flying with ease, but Singer can't make something as dramatically practical as a romantic conversation work. The result is the numb, lifeless "Superman Returns".

You guys wanna know where Singer really screwed up? Casting. Forget that talent-less fucker Brandon Routh. If Singer had cast a likable, open-faced actress in the part of Lois, perhaps his failed attempt at staging a Superhero romance might succeeded partially.

The once-lovely Kate Bosworth looks like a demon in "Superman Returns". A fucking impenetrable Ice Queen demon bitch, one with no on-screen personality to boot.

http://www.canmag.com/images/front/lap/superloislane.jpg

Visually, she's had the life sucked out of her, much like everything else that falls tragically under the shadow of Singer's creative vision, from the film's bland, grey sets all the way down to the enormously distracting Kal Penn popping up as one of Lex's minions. Note to Bryan Singer: I did not pay $8.50 to see Kumar kick superman in the gut, you fucking numb-nuts.

My fantasy pick for Lois Lane (fuck you, Bryan Singer and your casting department):

http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/emmyrossum/emmy_rossum_2.jpg

[bigred760]

Superman's "inner anguish" would be something cool to see onscreen. It's one of the reasons I liked Reeve's first two movies. I think Routh could pull it off if given the chance, he just wasn't given much of one in Superman Returns - I'll give you that.

I thought Routh did alright in the movie; he didn't come close to Christopher Reeve, but he was alright. I had no problem with Bosworth either, although she wasn't my first choice for the role. Emmy Rossum is delicious, but a bit young for the role (she's not even old enough to drink yet) - not that Bosworth is ancient, but at least she could be made to look older - they would've had a tougher time with Rossum in that.

Singer's X2 improved on the first X-flick in so many ways, I don't see why he couldn't do the same with a second Superman flick. I enjoyed Superman Returns, though I didn't love it and will admit it has flaws. But I think Singer did a decent enough job to warrant an opportunity to do another.

[jolanar]

I think i'm the only person in the universe who thinks Kevin Spacey was terribly miscast as Lex Luthor.

I enjoyed Superman a lot, but there were a lot of problems with the film. I thought the superboy subplot was lame. Child actors shouldn't exist. Kate Bosworth as Louis Lane??! Give me a break.

[APzombie]

Looking at it from the perspective of its shooting budget and the talent surrounding the picture- I expected more. It is a very solid film, I probobly would have dug it alot growing up. Its in the spirit of Donner's Superman movie--- but its been a looong time since Donner's Superman. I want a fucking war brewing up on screen with a budget the size of a third world country, not another goofy Lex Luthor scam.

That being said, I hope with the costs down on the sequal- Singer might have the balls to take a risk with the story and do something with the character.

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

Originally posted by jolanar
Kate Bosworth as Louis Lane??!

Lois.

Louis would be a man.



:)

[jaw2929]

I don't know... I gotta disagree, I absolutely LOVED Superman Returns... I didn't think Bosworth was the greatest Lois (I miss Margot Kidder) but the writing saved the character (cuz she was VERY hard to look at I thought)....

Routh did a brilliant job taking over for Reeve... Some of his gestures, and the sound of his voice at times was simply uncanny to that of Reeves I thought...

I'm looking forward to the new Superman movie, should be damned good! :)

[MisterTwister]

I went in seeing Superman Returns just so I could see a Superman movie on the big screen. I wasn't overly excited for it as I was with Batman Begins. But to my surprise I loved this movie. Seeing the opening credits as they were in Superman I and II and the fantastic John Williams' superman theme brought pure joy to me and I thought Brandon Routh was superb as the new man of steel, a worthy new superman that reminded of me of the late and great Chris Reeve. I thought Spacey was a great Luthor, better then Hackman, who was also great in the role. Bosworth was missing the spark Kidder had but still did good enough for me to give a damn. The movie did lack action sequences but what I got was pretty damn good. Loved the film though and much better then Superman III and IV.

9/10

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by jolanar
I think i'm the only person in the universe who thinks Kevin Spacey was terribly miscast as Lex Luthor.

He was a great casting choice the only problem is that Singer and the script called for him to immitate as best he can Hackman's performance... Which was the whole problem with Luthor's character in the movie.

[Shockwave]

..that was the problem with the whole movie. Rather then being its own animal, it tried to be what had come before.

I felt like i had seen nearly every scene in the movie before in the series. It just felt dated, afraid, and unable to step out of the shadow of past glory.

[Tyler_Durden_208]

Which is what I think Singer was trying to do. He was trying to establish a connection the first two, while adding on a little, before he injects even more of his own makings into the next one. And I actually thought Spacey's Lex was a breath of fresh air compared to Hackman's Lex who felt like he belong on an episode of the '60's Batman series. I don't think Hackman's Lex would've ever gotten that vicious as the kryptonite back stabbing. "No, let's place this pimpin' Kryptonite necklace on Supes that can easily be removed! It's evil, but it's also safe for the kids to see!"

[Shockwave]

..i will say that as much i as i really didnt care for this one at all, i DO think SInger is a very talented director, and that he will make one hell of a movie with the next one. Just step the fuck out of Donners shadow.

[GodMagnus]

Don't know if this has been mentioned so i'll post it anyway.
Superman returns is a sequel to Superman II and supposedly a prequel to 3 and 4 or erasing 3 and 4 altogether.
Anyway, after he lost his powers. he had sex with Lois, he was basically "human". The child seems to be just starting to gain his power which means that her pregnancy would have been a regular one.

Now onto my pro's and cons about this film.
Cons:
-Slow paced
-Lois actor didn't feel like the right choice
-Lifting an island of kryptonite using the remainder of his strength to save the world
-the insecure love aspect of the story

Pros:
-Imo, Routh was a pretty good Superman
-Lex was much more sinister than Gene Hackmans version
-Lifting an island of kryptonite using the remainder of his strength to save the world
-James Marsden (guy from x-men) character was done really well imo.
I though he'd get dumped of find out he was evil, so the "normal good guy" worked well for me
-The kid was done decently, nothing really spectacular but not a "negative" thing for me.

I enjoyed the movie, plan on buying the DVD and PS2 game (should be fun like the Spider-man games) but I by no means think it was FANTASTIC or anything. I can completly see why there are haters with this movie.

That's about it!

[William Munny]

Originally posted by GodMagnus
I enjoyed the movie, plan on buying the DVD and PS2 game (should be fun like the Spider-man games) but I by no means think it was FANTASTIC or anything.


And that's precisely why I hate the film.

A "Superman" film should be fantastic, especially one crafted in the age of nearly limitless CGI. While Singer may have nailed the effects (and on a $200 million+ budget, how could he not have?), he neglected such age-old filmic necessities as pacing, casting, and, above all, working from a good script.

I've included a link below to a BoxOfficeMojo article that lists the "Superman Returns" budget at $270 million. Although that may be a summative budget inclusive of both the cost of the film(s) as well as world-wide marketing, it's damn ridiculous, and just goes to show that no amount of studio cash can buy a good film. What is most unfortunate here is that Warner Bros.' enormous fiscal irresponsibility is overshadowed by the disastrous creative irresponsibility they displayed by hiring Bryan Singer.

I would have rather seen McG's "Superman Returns". I would have rather seen Brett Ratner's "Superman Returns". I would have rather seen Stephen Sommers' "Superman Returns", and Michael Bay's, and so on.

Why? Because while I'm certain that these directors would tarnish the Superman legacy just as badly, they certainly wouldn't have delivered a film so bland, so boring, and so devoid of human emotion as Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns". Their films would be funny, at the very least. "Superman Returns" isn't even that. It's an unmitigated disaster, one which the Superman franchise may never recover from.

On a side note, I really, really hope that Bryan Singer is reading this.

Budget article: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm

[ZenDude]

I expected more from SR, but I cannot be a resonable person and score it below 8/10 and say it didnt wow me at all. It was great, bt could have been better. Its also leaps bounds and light years ahead of X3

[bigred760]

Originally posted by GodMagnus
Don't know if this has been mentioned so i'll post it anyway.
Superman returns is a sequel to Superman II and supposedly a prequel to 3 and 4 or erasing 3 and 4 altogether.
Anyway, after he lost his powers. he had sex with Lois, he was basically "human". The child seems to be just starting to gain his power which means that her pregnancy would have been a regular one.

My only problem with this theory is that when she learns that the kid is Superman's - after the piano incident in Superman Returns - she's got to wonder when she slept with Superman to get knocked up. At the end of Superman II, she's kissed by Supes and forgets everything, including sleeping with the Man of Steel. So she's got to wonder when everything happened.

My theory is that they hooked up in between movies (I do agree this is an unofficial sequel to the second Reeve's movie) - regardless of the Mallrats theory - and then he left for five years to go see if there's anything left of Krypton and she took it personally. Hence why she's so pissed off and about to win an award for her article in Returns.

[Duke Nukem]

I thought that the budget for SR was 200 million. Is that extra 70 million for the pre-production stuff that went into the countless "Superman" projects in the `90's that never came to be? If that's the case, it's not fair to account for those failed projects. They should only be counting only for all the work that went into "Superman Returns," not those earlier productions that bailed out.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Duke Nukem
I thought that the budget for SR was 200 million. Is that extra 70 million for the pre-production stuff that went into the countless "Superman" projects in the `90's that never came to be? If that's the case, it's not fair to account for those failed projects. They should only be counting only for all the work that went into "Superman Returns," not those earlier productions that bailed out.

I don't think we'll ever know exactly how much Superman Returns actually cost, what with all the costs surrounding the failed attempts. But one thing's for sure, the sequel won't be as much.

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

Originally posted by Duke Nukem
I thought that the budget for SR was 200 million. Is that extra 70 million for the pre-production stuff that went into the countless "Superman" projects in the `90's that never came to be? If that's the case, it's not fair to account for those failed projects. They should only be counting only for all the work that went into "Superman Returns," not those earlier productions that bailed out.

The final budget for the picture was $204 million. Warners stated months ago that the money from the failed projects had been written off. On the $270 million budget, Box Office Mojo has it way wrong.

[William Munny]

Originally posted by Mr. Fred Krueger
The final budget for the picture was $204 million.

I was well aware of the money that went into the failed Superman projects of the 90's.

That being said, my point still stands. With $204 million at his disposal, Singer's enormous creative failure on "Superman Returns" establishes him firmly as an irresponsible and severely untalented filmmaker.

[Shockwave]

That being said, my point still stands. With $204 million at his disposal, Singer's enormous creative failure on "Superman Returns" establishes him firmly as an irresponsible and severely untalented filmmaker.

How?

I didnt like Superman Returns, but his work in Apt Pupil, X-men, and X2, and Usual Suspects MORE then makes up for it in terms of quality control.

How does one flub make him severely untalented?

His biggest sin with RETURNS to me was that he just didnt seem to trust himself enough. Everything in the damn movie i had seen before in past Superman films. I felt like i knew every scene in the movie before it happend.

[William Munny]

Originally posted by Shockwave
How?

I didnt like Superman Returns, but his work in Apt Pupil, X-men, and X2, and Usual Suspects MORE then makes up for it in terms of quality control.

"The Usual Suspects" is overrated. Singer's excellent work on "X-Men" and "X2" is negated, in my opinion, by his choice to leave the franchise at its most crucial hour. And "Apt Pupil"? I haven't seen it, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.

[Shockwave]

Singer's excellent work on "X-Men" and "X2" is negated, in my opinion, by his choice to leave the franchise at its most crucial hour.

How can u blame the guy for stuff that happend after he left?

The guy is only alive for so long, i dont blame him for wanting to do other things with his life. ( even if i realllllllly wanted him to stay with it. )

[Crazy Dud]

Originally posted by Shockwave
How can u blame the guy for stuff that happend after he left?

The guy is only alive for so long, i dont blame him for wanting to do other things with his life. ( even if i realllllllly wanted him to stay with it. )

Exactly! Who can blame the man for not wanting to spend nearly a decade of his life on X-Men? It was, however, sad that he left it, and Ratner's abysmal film makes it worse (although, to his credit, the film's problems lie more with the screenplay than with the director).

[William Munny]

Originally posted by Shockwave
How can u blame the guy for stuff that happend after he left?


I don't blame him for what happened after he left. I blame him for leaving. Singer should have stayed the course with X-Men instead of tarnishing the Superman franchise.

[stickmangrit]

Originally posted by William Munny
I don't blame him for what happened after he left. I blame him for leaving. Singer should have stayed the course with X-Men instead of tarnishing the Superman franchise.

i've agreed with every point of yours so far, but right now you're squarely in the wrong. Singer did not "abandon the franchise in it's most crucial hour," 20th Century Fox fucked both he and the franchise over in the home stretch. Singer waited two fucking years for a green light and a contract from Fox that never came. he was then offered the Logan's Run remake by WB. he first consulted with Fox to see if X-Men would still be there when he got back, to which they said yes. he left under the auspices that he would be allowed to do X3 as soon as Fox got around to putting it forward. then WB decided to can Logan's Run and offer Singer Superman instead, and this is where all hell breaks loose. the second Singer signs on for Superman, Fox(specifically Tom Rothman) kicks X3 into high gear, telling Singer to fuck himself and desperately trying to beat Superman to the box-office. Micheal Vaughn gets signed on to direct, does a script treatment, casts Grammer as Beast, and then suddenly leaves for "family reasons." Fox, undaunted by what would be a major setback on the production of any other movie, churns right on ahead, hires a workhorse director who they can trust to get it in on-time and under-budget no matter what psychotic restrictions they throw at him(i.e. Ratner) and churn out a chunk of shit at the fans a week ahead of SR, winning the perceived dick-measuring contest. unsurprisingly, both movies end up blowing farm animals as a result of this bullshit.

[Quigles]

This is one of the worst rants I've ever come across.

Calling a filmmaker bad because he made ONE movie that wasn't up to your standards of perfection?

I think Superman is the worst superhero ever, but I loved SUPERMAN RETURNS. I barely even cared to go see it, but I was blown away when I did.

OK, so some other people didn't like it - that happens to all movies, especially huge movies with a following like Superman's.

But just because you didn't like it, doesn't mean your opinion is correct.

Just like when I say FANTASTIC FOUR and X3 are cinematic farts on the comic book franchises they represent - that doesn't make my opinion right.

Oh no wait, I'm posting on a message board. Nevermind then, I'm instantly right and you're instantly wrong.

[William Munny]

Stickmangrit - That was one of the most comprehensive (and surprisingly brief) histories of the X3 / Superman debacle that I have heard yet. You bring up some interesting points, especially the info you provided on studio intereference in both films, a fact that I almost entirely neglected in my original rant.

Originally posted by Quigles
But just because you didn't like it, doesn't mean your opinion is correct.

Just like when I say FANTASTIC FOUR and X3 are cinematic farts on the comic book franchises they represent - that doesn't make my opinion right.

Oh no wait, I'm posting on a message board. Nevermind then, I'm instantly right and you're instantly wrong.

I apologize if I offended you, Quigles. I was almost sure that my negative comments (opinions, merely) were directed towards Singer and the "Returns" team.

But I'll say this - for anyone that watches as many films as I do (and I'm willing to bet that I don't watch half as many as some on this board), you very quickly develop a sense for what's good and what's bad. When it comes to "Superman Returns", I know shit when I smell it.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Love Synger, Loved the X-men series (except 3), but i really was not blown away with Superman Returns. The action was alright, Routh was sweet as Superman, but Kate bosworth wasnt that great as Lois Lane.

Then again, i thought X-men was just alright the first time i saw it, but then i was blown away from X2. So bring the sequel, cant wait

[William Munny]

Originally posted by Mr.HyDe807
Kate bosworth wasnt that great as Lois Lane.

That seems to be the universal consensus around here. It's not that Bosworth was terrible, I think, but that she was miscast and then horribly transformed by the film's hair and makeup department.

Is there anyone who thought that Bosworth worked in the film?

[Quigles]

Originally posted by William Munny
I apologize if I offended you, Quigles. I was almost sure that my negative comments (opinions, merely) were directed towards Singer and the "Returns" team.
Oh, no, I wasn't offended. I was just ranting about your rant. :D

I don't mind people stating their opinion about a film, but when it gets to the point when they start acting like they know better than everyone else... well, that's when I feel like I'm on the IMDB boards.

[William Munny]

Originally posted by Quigles
I don't mind people stating their opinion about a film, but when it gets to the point when they start acting like they know better than everyone else... well, that's when I feel like I'm on the IMDB boards.

Yeah, sorry about that : - /

I'm actually inviting a whole bunch of people over to see "Returns" when it comes out Tuesday just to gauge their opinion. It should be interesting to see if I'm the only one out of my buddies who really despises the film.

[jeo4]

Sorry, I disagree with this rant. I saw this film three times just to make certain it wasn't just a first-view sort of infatuation, and I still loved it. The characters are spot on and the story is good. The acting is on par with the other Superman flicks and in some cases much better than the later ones. I just can't agree with this rant on any level.

No offense of course, Munny...you've made some great points before. I just happened to have thoroughly enjoyed this film. Much more so than any of the X-Men, Spiderman, Fantastic Four, etc.

[William Munny]

Originally posted by jeo4
No offense of course, Munny...you've made some great points before. I just happened to have thoroughly enjoyed this film.

Oh, none taken. And I'll agree to this much - it was better than "Fantastic Four".

[Crazy Dud]

Originally posted by William Munny
Oh, none taken. And I'll agree to this much - it was better than "Fantastic Four".

Amen to that!:D

[AJAX]

Superman is an absentee dad.

(2/10) I never really liked Supes and this movie sure didn't change my opinion of him.

[William Munny]

Originally posted by AJAX
Superman is an absentee dad.


The father-son dynamic was actually my favorite part of the film.

Having just re-watched it, and putting my distaste for Singer aside, I can say this with honesty. "Superman Returns" is a film that places its plot over its characters. This would be fine if the plot had some thematic relevance, but it really doesn't. The plot is simply tedious.

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

Originally posted by AJAX
Superman is an absentee dad.



It's not like he knew Lois was pregnant and still left. The moment Superman finds out he is Jason's father, he pays a visit and lets Lois know that he's always around for them. That way he can be a father to Jason (much like Jor-El was a second father for him) and (hopefully) not disrupt Lois and Richard's relationship.

[Tyler_Durden_208]

Watching this a second time last night, I can still see what people disliked about it, but I still find so much to like. (That shot of Superman landing-- nay slamming down onto the Kryptonite island is fucking awesome.) I also feel like the "death of Superman" was a little tedious, and would've been fine if it just went from him saving the day, to everything back to normal, and then visiting Lois' home. (She could've told him somehow some other way, I dunno.) Still, it's not enough to detract from it for me. One of the big things for me that I liked about the movie is how it didn't have a typical Hollywood ending that you'd expect where Superman wins back the girl, etc. It ends with Supes' big Kryptonian heart still broken. Another thing I noticed on the second view was how Richard actually is a good father and husband. The first viewing I was kinda "screw you, you stole Superman's girl", but now it's more "that sucks for you Supes, but you blew it". Also loved how dark the movie felt in comparison to its predecessors. In my opinion, Singer can make as many Superman movies as he feels like. Just spread your wings a little more on the next flight, bud.

[Tuukka]

Just watched this.

Save for a few good moments, this was a pretty awful film, IMHO.

The plot is idiotic, Luthor's plan no makes no fucking sense whatsoever, and the film spends 2 hours building it up, and there is never any reason to care whether he succeeds or not.

While Superman's moral dilemma COULD have been interesting, in the end it all boils down to whether he can steal someone else's girl, or not. How fucking lame romance. And since it's obvious Lois is gonna end up with him in the end, there is no excitement here.

The characters are ALL unlikeable and boring. Superman is a boring emo kid, who can't get over with the fact his girl moved on with her life when Supes went away for five years. Lois is an unlikeable bitch. Lex is corny and dumb.

Even all the actors felt as if they took no joy in playing their parts - Yes, that includes Kevin Spacey, who was really phoning it in.

The action scenes were the best part of the film, but even they were really bady motivated. I mean:

1. The space shuttle scene is just an accidentental side effect, and has no real motivation for it to happen. And Supes saves the day because he is really STRONG.

2. The bank robbery didn't have anything to do with the story of the film and has no real motivation for it to happen. And Supes saves the day because he is really STRONG.

3. The earthquake scene is just an accidentental side effect, and has no real motivation for it to happen. And Supes saves the day because he is really STRONG.

4. The lifting of the continent is just dumb. Superman can lift an entire fucking continent made of kryptonite, when even a small rock of it can make him very weak? Made no fucking sense whatsoever. And again Supes saves the day because he is really STRONG.

...The point is, the villain caused bad things just accidentally and his plans were just stupid. The action scenes didn't have proper motivation, and therefore it was hard to care what happened. And Superman never showed any wit or creativity - like a true hero would - he always won simply because he was stronger. Whatever.

And man, is this film boring or what? The dialogue was awful. The characters were bland. The plotlines stupid. NOTHING FELT MOTIVATED. NOTHING WAS EVER REALLY AT STAKE.

Blah.

4/10.

[Tyler_Durden_208]

Originally posted by Tuukka
And since it's obvious Lois is gonna end up with him in the end, there is no excitement here.
While I find your other points valid, she didn't end up with him in the end. I kinda thought that was the point. As for being an "emo kid who can't move on", you've never had your heart broken? You don't exactly get over it in a few hours after a couple beers. Especially when you have barely anyone to talk about it to. I mean, I understand not liking the movie, but let's not nitpick things here.;)

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Tyler_Durden_208
While I find your other points valid, she didn't end up with him in the end. I kinda thought that was the point. As for being an "emo kid who can't move on", you've never had your heart broken? You don't exactly get over it in a few hours after a couple beers. Especially when you have barely anyone to talk about it to. I mean, I understand not liking the movie, but let's not nitpick things here.;)

Oh, I missed that she dumped him, because I was fastforwarding towards the end... I was so bored. :)

I just think that the Superman's internal struggle had potential on an idea level, but I just never felt it emotionally or intellectually. For example how about showing in practice how Superman turns his back on people and then a LOT of folks die because of that? That would have been incredibly dramatic, poignant and powerful.

But the film didn't have balls to live up to it's themes, and therefore it all just felt really watered down.

[The Postmaster General]

Superman was really cool 30 years ago before we had comic book movies in which the characters are very multi-dimensional. It's hard to care about the personal struggles of man who is faster than a speeding bullet and can derail a train with his penis, dismantle it, then eat the train piece by piece.

[Shockwave]

I just think that the Superman's internal struggle had potential on an idea level, but I just never felt it emotionally or intellectually.

That was my problem with it. Good idea, bad execution.

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Superman was really cool 30 years ago before we had comic book movies in which the characters are very multi-dimensional. It's hard to care about the personal struggles of man who is faster than a speeding bullet and can derail a train with his penis, dismantle it, then eat the train piece by piece.

Oh please. Superman IS a multidimensional character. Just because he has a load of superpowers doesn't mean he doesn't have character. Read the Man of Steel arc by John Byrne or heck, even Busiek's run on Superman shows that Superman has a lot more than just loads of superpowers.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Mr. Fred Krueger
Oh please. Superman IS a multidimensional character. Just because he has a load of superpowers doesn't mean he doesn't have character. Read the Man of Steel arc by John Byrne or heck, even Busiek's run on Superman shows that Superman has a lot more than just loads of superpowers.


You right, I was coming on too strong. I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate, and I think people are more cynical about movie characters than they were when Reeves was Superman. I'm not knocking the Man of Steel, my comments were mostly just meant to illustrate that. There is Superman as comic book mythology and Superman as a pop culture icon, the latter of which is what most people are familiar with. I really feel like its a harder brand to market now-a-days. Audiences think they are too hip for it, me thinks.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
There is Superman as comic book mythology and Superman as a pop culture icon, the latter of which is what most people are familiar with. I really feel like its a harder brand to market now-a-days. Audiences think they are too hip for it, me thinks.

The problem with Superman being a pop culture icon is that he's not a modern day pop culture icon. He's a boy scout, and not a hard ass like Batman or Wolverine. You're right that he was cool(er) 30 years ago; today, "cool" has a different meaning for the kids. I think for him to be more successful, he would have to take on a more powerful villain, other than Lex Luthor - which I believe is the direction the filmmakers will be going in for the sequel.

[JCPhoenix]

Superman's my least favorite comic book hero (based on what I know and from the films rather than the comics - I will state that I've only read a small handful of comics and none of them were Superman) simply because, to me, he's the most boring of the comic book heroes out there. It's something along the lines of what Bubba said - he's too invincible and he's definitely a much less multidimensional character compared to the other comic book heroes out there. I hate that his sole flaw/weakness - isn't even a character flaw...kryptonite is, in my opinion, one of the lamest "flaws" ever in the history of STORYTELLING.

To me, it seems like it would lead to the same thing over and over again in a film (using kryptonite against Superman, whoop-dee-doo).

In any case, I don't understand the rant against Bryan Singer, especially for leaving the X-Men franchise. If you feel that he did a good job on those two films, how can you still call him "untalented" just cause of his work on Superman Returns? That makes no sense that his work on those two would be "negated" by his leaving the franchise...

The Usual Suspects had enough impact to singlehandedly convert me into a film fan (and eventually lead me to decide to go into film as my career...) so for me, it could never be overrated.

HOWEVER, with all that said - I agree with a few of the points made about Superman Returns. I gave it an 8/10 on initial viewing but on a second viewing, it really bored me. I had a lot of problems with it, the main significant one being that it paid homage to the original Superman (8/10) way too much - if it was intended as a sequel to Superman I and II, it shouldn't have done so many references - it was almost like half a remake/half a sequel...I can understand a little homage here and there but when you have a SEQUEL, they don't usually pay homage to the first film, they move the story along so it's a fluid transition. Superman Returns does so much looking back that it never achieves this - its storyline is pretty much a copy of the first Superman in general (Lex Luthor/real estate, the Lois Lane/Superman flying scene, etc)...

That's probably the most significant thing that disappointed me about Superman Returns and nagged at me a lot more on a repeat viewing. THAT SAID, I still did enjoy the movie overall and I feel that with a sequel to Returns, Singer will have gotten all that bowing down to the original out of his system and actually make a genuinely good Superman movie.

[The Postmaster General]

bigred - I"d say that, or teamed up with the Justice League to show the contrast in his character, and how virtue is good.