OK Ive slept on it and all things considered, Im sad to say that I honestly thought that movie sucked.
[quote]Dirty Tiger wrote:
Professor X wrote:
comedypedro wrote:
Get rid of the son, get Kate Beckinsdale as Lois, give Spacey something more to work with and you’d have a movie.
It kind of makes you wonder why no one told Bryan Singer this when it seems that obvious to everyone else.
I gotta agree! I heard that Singer never really read the comics. It shows.
DC Comics should be ashamed.
[/quote]
That explains a lot actually. I read that Sam Raimi was a big fan of the Spiderman comics and it definitely shows in the films.
I’m behind on the topic, but here goes. Overall, I was disappointed. I was genuinely excited for this movie and left the theater unsatisfied.
I feel like the movie was trying to do too much and cram too many things without following through on any. It was just too much. There was Superman’s return. Clark’s return. Superman’s absence. Lex’s plot. Lois’s life without Superman. And the kid. Too much and no real conclusion to any of it.
Superman never really explained his absence to Lois. There are a lot of inconsistencies regarding Lois, the kid, and the absence.
Kevin Spacey did well with what he had to work with, but the role of Luthor was so limited. He’s Kevin Spacey, let him do like Nicholson did with the Joker.
The movie would have been much better had they left out the kid and focus on reacquainting Lois and Superman/Clark. Give Lex a larger role and let Spacey really play Lex. Make him really evil, give him a better plan and have a better showdown between him and Superman. The end product: a much better movie.
And one last thing. The movie almost seemed a little too “romantic.” I mean there was just too much going on with feelings and emotions. It almost seemed like they were taking a page from the Spider-Man movies. There’s a big difference, though. Superman is a story about a superhero, one that’s not even human. Spider-Man is a story about a high school kid (older now, obviously) trying to live a regular life, but just happens to be a superhero.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
And one last thing. The movie almost seemed a little too “romantic.” I mean there was just too much going on with feelings and emotions. It almost seemed like they were taking a page from the Spider-Man movies. There’s a big difference, though. Superman is a story about a superhero, one that’s not even human. Spider-Man is a story about a high school kid (older now, obviously) trying to live a regular life, but just happens to be a superhero.[/quote]
The running theme with Superman is supposed to be a dead simple one: he’s just a farmboy from small-town Kansas who believes in doing the right thing. He’s not a power fantasy; he’s the fantasy of unstoppable altruism.
Time and again people try to create complexity where there should be simplicity, and screw the character up. It’s amazing; anybody can write a jerk, but people have trouble writing a nice guy and making him likeable. Who the Hell wouldn’t like someone like this (other than maniacal sociopaths).
For a really good take on a modern rendition of Superman, Luthor, and Lois, take a look at Mark Waid’s “Birthright” graphic novel from a couple years back. There’s some politically correct touches that irritate me (like making Superman a vegetarian), but otherwise it’s a fine adaptation. It would have made a better movie, at any rate.
Smallville does a fine job. The animated series by Dini and Timm? Probably the best of all. Really, the character’s been done right so very often that there’s no reason for a movie to fumble the ball in the slightest.
In response to an earlier question about whether or not Superman could have children with a human: the answer is “no”. Not because of “super-seed”, but simply because he’s not human. A very similar race, but advanced far beyond ours. There’s not enough genetic compatibility. Close but not quite there.
The more I think about this movie after having seen it, and the more I talk to people who’ve seen it and read the replies here…
I’m really starting to realize how poor this movie actually is.
You all who are disrespecting the film and the directions it took are not seeing the bigger picture.
SUPERMAN RETURNS simply is just a few days in the time that is to come. It set up the next two or three films. That explains why they did not touch on some of the stories that they set up. If they satisfied your hunger now, what would you be hungry for later?
Give it a chance and wait for the follow up films. I know that they will quinch that desire that you a seeking. Trust me!!
[quote]Kal-El wrote:
You all who are disrespecting the film and the directions it took are not seeing the bigger picture.
SUPERMAN RETURNS simply is just a few days in the time that is to come. It set up the next two or three films. That explains why they did not touch on some of the stories that they set up. If they satisfied your hunger now, what would you be hungry for later?
Give it a chance and wait for the follow up films. I know that they will quinch that desire that you a seeking. Trust me!![/quote]
Sorry, man, but that’s utter bullshit. I heard the same excuse used when Whedon turned out a crappy Firefly movie that tried to do two years of plot in two hours. I wish the film had never been made so that the memory of how good the show was hadn’t been tarnished.
A movie has to stand on its own merits, or the sequel never gets made. This one probably will, just due to corporate backing and the desire to correct screw-ups (much like the FF, I’m thinking), but that doesn’t excuse gaping plot holes, inconsistencies, and utterly fucking up the character’s moral scope.
[quote]Kal-El wrote:
You all who are disrespecting the film and the directions it took are not seeing the bigger picture.
SUPERMAN RETURNS simply is just a few days in the time that is to come. It set up the next two or three films. That explains why they did not touch on some of the stories that they set up. If they satisfied your hunger now, what would you be hungry for later?
Give it a chance and wait for the follow up films. I know that they will quinch that desire that you a seeking. Trust me!![/quote]
I don’t agree with you, but I hope there are bigger and better things to come.
There’s still no reason not have a better storyline, though. The movie was far too focused on Lois. It should have been about Clark/Superman. Or hell, make Lex the focus. Wait a minute…
Why not make a Lex Luther movie and focus on him and have the hero, who may or may not defeat him, be the secondary character. Why don’t they ever do that? Instead of a superhero movie, why not a supervillain movie. Off the top of my head I can’t think if this has been done.
Anyway, the first movie was weak, I hope the sequel is much better. And I still think they shouldn’t have dragged some kid into the storyline.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Why not make a Lex Luther movie and focus on him and have the hero, who may or may not defeat him, be the secondary character. Why don’t they ever do that? Instead of a superhero movie, why not a supervillain movie. Off the top of my head I can’t think if this has been done.
[/quote]
The Usual Suspects. 
Just saw it with my wife. Her only complaint? Superman looked too “pretty.”
Mine? Luthor should have been much smarter and more devious. Not a wannabe real-estate agent.
Still, we liked it enough that we are planning to see it in 3D IMAX soon. The shuttle/plane rescue should look killer.
[quote]Kal-El wrote:
You all who are disrespecting the film and the directions it took are not seeing the bigger picture.
SUPERMAN RETURNS simply is just a few days in the time that is to come. It set up the next two or three films. That explains why they did not touch on some of the stories that they set up. If they satisfied your hunger now, what would you be hungry for later?
Give it a chance and wait for the follow up films. I know that they will quinch that desire that you a seeking. Trust me!![/quote]
Have to disagree with your post. I dont want to watch a movie that is just a prelude to a main story, its fine to set up future stories but a movie should still stand on its own.
I see from your username that youre obviously a big Superman fan, dosent it piss you off that theyre taking major liberties with the whole Superman story/myth ???
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Instead of a superhero movie, why not a supervillain movie. Off the top of my head I can’t think if this has been done.
[/quote]
The orignal 1989 Batman film should of been called “Joker” as it was all about him.
[quote]
I see from your username that youre obviously a big Superman fan, dosent it piss you off that theyre taking major liberties with the whole Superman story/myth ???[/quote]
When I do think about it I am just a little disappointed to be completly honest. I agree with some of you when you say they should have followed up on a lot of the items. However, I know there are great things to come, Singer seems to get better with each sequal he makes.Just look at X2!
[quote]TurboSSR wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Instead of a superhero movie, why not a supervillain movie. Off the top of my head I can’t think if this has been done.
The orignal 1989 Batman film should of been called “Joker” as it was all about him.
[/quote]
Yeah, it could have been called that, and that did come to mind. Batman was a good movie, too. So again, why doesn’t anyone else make a movie where the focus is on the villain? It just has to be the right villain. If done right, a Lex Luthor movie could be awesome.