Superman Returns, why did it fail?

plissken

After watching Superman Returns on TV over the weekend, it got me asking myself, why exactly did it fail?

Though I had'nt seen it since its cinema release four years ago, I still remember it fondly. Memories which proved to be correct after once again enjoying it over the weekend. I recall hearing during its original release, how it had performed well below industry predictions and expectations, but for the life of me don't understand how.

Superman is without doubht, one of... if not the most iconic fictitous character of our time. The film had a much respected Director, cutting edge special effects and a story which updated the character for our troubled years, yet it failed. I'd be most interested to hear others musings about this as I must admit I'm totally perplexed.

Lothaar v2

plissken wrote: »

Superman is without doubht, one of... if not the most iconic fictitous character of our time. The film had a much respected Director, cutting edge special effects and a story which updated the character for our troubled times, yet it failed. I'd be most interested to hear others musings about this as I must admit I'm totally perplexed.

Sure, it had all of that, everything going for it, but the problem was: it sucked balls.

Lois Lane was horrifically annoying and the film went on a good hour too long.

norrie rugger

Superman is too powerful for any of his on screen enemies. The comics have guys stronger than him but are a bit out there, for the movie audience. Couple that with typical view of Luthor just a land obsessed loon, a terribly mis cast louis, giving Clarke very little to say/do and having the obvious twist with the kid, i am surprised it did as well as it did.

Mr E

I can't remember it. I saw it when it came out, I sort of liked it, but its in no way memorable like the original trilogy (Quest for Peace doesn't count)

The only thing I can remember about Superman Returns is Spacey's Lex Luthor shouting "Wrong". And I can't remember the context of that either....

Being able to remember just one word in the movie kind of sums it up. Very forgettable.

Penn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clgFemvqQfI

EDIT: Sorry, should probably say NSFW. Swearing and stuff

norrie rugger

Oh and cyclops (completely blanking on his name) came across as braver than supes too, due to the writing. Also they made supes a bit of a stalker.

I do think that Brandon Roth did very well as superman though and showed the potential to convey a good Kent.

super_furry

I just thought the whole thing was boring and hugely anti-climactic with the biggest scene having him lift a really big rock. There was no pay-off at all.

Kess73

It lacked a threat to Supes beyond kryponite.


It needed someone who can hurt Supes. The comics have a long list of characters that can go toe to toe with Supes, and a few that can kick him around the place.

Look at how well Superman II went down. It went from a guy that nobody could hurt, to having three characters that could take a punch from him and come back with one of their own.


The arguement that having characters like some in the comics being too much for an audience to believe carries no weight with me.

Supes can fly. Is super strong and comes with a variety of super powers, and the movie going audience has no problem with that, so why should a bad guy that falls into Supes power class be a problem.

I have always felt that Doomsday could be brought to the big screen, and if done right, he would be excellent onscreen.

Personally I would see Doomsday fitting into part of a trilogy on the big screen.

Film one would have some other threat to Supes, with the end of that film having a teaser shot of Doomsday starting to get loose from his bindings.

Film two would be Doomsday loose and kicking the hell out of everything. Pretty much following the Death Of Superman comic for the fights between Supes and Doomsday but not bothering with a lot of the minor DC characters in that run.

The ending could be that of the comic.

Film three would be Supes back, and could take some elements from the return of Superman series.


At least then it would be three films following some degree of a storyline, rather than having Supes in a villan of the week type thing for a few films.

speedboatchase

1. It was a semi-sequel to a movie from the 70s. people wanted a full-on reboot. The fact the guy playing Superman looked a dead ringer for Christopher Reeves was no coincidence, and they would've been better off with an actor with either name-recognition or a lot more charisma, rather than someone that looked like Reeves

2. Superman is still quite saturated in pop culture and has been for a while, in terms of TV shows. Having Lex Luthor as the main antagonist and a plot very similar to the first 70s movie told people this was not a unique story or challenge for the character and you've probably seen it before

3. In today's climate Superman doesn't resonate as much because he is simply too powerful and alien for audiences used to geeks (Spiderman), brooding vigilantes (Batman) or charming playboys (Iron Man) to relate to. If you asked a kid to create a superhero and their power and they gave the hero nearly every power possible you'd roll your eyes - but that's exactly what Superman is, the guy turned the earth's axis before! And everyone is absolutely fed up with kryptonite as a plot device

4. Bad casting. Spacey was horrible (WRONNNNG!), Routh was a charismas vaccuum and Lois Lane looked 14 years old. None of them have made a good movie since. Also as mentioned, due to the writing and him being a stronger acter, James Marsden's character came off a lot better than the slightly creepy Routh. And nobody wants a

"Son of Superman" plot twist

Superman now needs a director and studio with massive balls, unafraid to shake up the franchise as much as possible. There are still interesting interpretations of the character (the Red Son series where he's fighting for the Russians for example) so there's still hope. Last I've heard Chris Nolan's brother might direct the next film under Nolan's mentorship

lizardfudge

norrie rugger wrote: »

Oh and cyclops (completely blanking on his name) came across as braver than supes too, due to the writing. Also they made supes a bit of a stalker.

Yep. That was a big issue. He just fecks off for years and then thinks he can just walk back in Lois's life and boot out the guy who has stood by her all those years. Then you get into the issue of how stupidly young they all are in the film, which meant they'd have been unrealistically young before he fecked off years beforehand.

The scene with the airplane was well done, aside from the fact that Lois should have had several broken bones, but barely has a hair out of place... the rest of the action was Superman just flying around and catching stuff and picking stuff up.

L31mr0d

What killed it for me was the atrocious plot. Lex Luthor and his whole Real Estate malarky was a joke, I half expected him to hold his pinky to his lip and utter "1 Million Dollars". Why should I care about this?

Superman has become a bit of a parody of himself in pop-culture. He's some Alien bloke that has come down to Earth and acts as judge and jury following his set of moral codes to punish and stop those that he sees as evil. If he didn't look human nobody would stand for it.

Penn

Yeah, the actress playing Lois was 22 at the time. For her to have a 5-year old son, with 9 months pregnancy means Superman should have handed himself into the authorities long ago. No wonder he f*cked off for 5 years

Roar

the biggest problem with superman returns is that it was just oh so very boring.

that and it turned supes into a stalker..

Sleazus

In a nutshell:

• the entire plot (Lex Luthor wants land!) is a rehash of the 1978 movie which we watched dozens of times while waiting for what should have been a new movie, which this should have been - hell, even the Superman announces his presence by saving an airplane bit had been done before
• any comic book villain gets boring after three go-rounds (four if you count Quest for Peace - I don't), so Lex was a tough sell, particularly as a real estate con artist
• if you want to make Superman more relatable to young audiences, don't give him a freakin' kid
• no special effects bonanza - the appeal of the originals was that "You'll believe a man could fly!" and we did; this time they needed to up the ante, given all that audiences had seen in the years before and since
• Superman is... well, super; having his stop runaway cars and foil bank robberies is mundane stuff, which is fun when Batman does it (because there's peril), but not when the man of steel does it
• there's a far too conscious an attempt to give Superman a sense of pathos - yes he hears everything, but he can actually do something about it; the fact that the movie seemed focused on making everything dull and worn down (like the crapsack island of Kryptonite), instead of bright and colourful; Superman doesn't really have pathos - he is the embodiment of man's capacity for good ("for this, above all else...")

My crazy-ass pitch for a Superman movie would involve juxtaposing Superman and Lex growing up. Lex, the perfect human, physically toned and mentally off the scale. He's the best there is. Until Superman shows up and can surpass him in every way without any sort of effort. That makes Lex, who has worked his way up from the slums through sweat and tears, incredibly jealous. Actually explore the Luthor-Superman dynamic. Don't give us a boring open confrontation, have them serve as uncomfortable bedfellows, with Luthor striving to undermine and destroy Superman, while being the true hero of Metroplis, a towering example of human accomplishment.

Anyway, give us a big supervillain, like Metallo, who actually poses a huge threat. Make the underlying themes about man's capacity for evolution and good or evil - to better ourselves or worsen ourselves. Have Lex designing robot soldiers and artificial intelligences, designing something "better than human" as he pitches it - and make that belief redundant. Have Superman and Metallo stand as the counterpoints of the next step in evolution of humanity, the embodiments of what we can achieve: one warm and loving, the other cold and literally with a poisonous heart.

Give us an epic finale. Have Luthor tell Superman it's physically impossible to save every life involved, that they should cut and run - and have Supes prove him wrong. Have Metropolis stand with the savior in on crowning moment of untiy - have them make the choice to stand with what is good and right, rather than making the easy and pragmatic choice.

But that's just me rambling.

conorhal

1) It was too reverential to the Donner versions, and by seeking to maintain a certain continuity with the originals slightly po-faced seriousness, Singer made a Superman Returns that felt dull and lifeless.

2) Yes Superman is an Iconic character, but almost too iconic to be shaped into a rounded character.
Superman has always been a personification of truth, justice and the American way, and as such he's an ideal not a person, a literal super man, and thus a flavorless, tiresome, goody two shoes and a pretty uninteresting character. Superman it just too powerful too ‘super’, and so it’s hard to generate any dramatic tension around a character that is invulnerable and can do literally almost anything. Into that deadly mix Singer adds EMO Superman…who has all the *bleep*ing power in the universe, and he’s still a bloody moaner.

3) Superman Returns effectively recycles the plot of the original only with added plot holes that render the film not just repetitive but also nonsensical, I won’t go into them here but needless to say, Lex Luthor is a total numpty, who the hell was going to buy all of his newly acquired beach from property? He should have stuck to blowing up California.

4) The cute kid factor, wow did that kill the film, that whole storyline was a dramatic anchor and not to stabilizing kind, but rather the drag you to the bottom of the Pacific kind.

5) Despite all the action, there’s just no escaping the fact that Bryan Singer managed to make a 300 million dollar chick flick about some emo super-stalker pining for his ex girlfriend and fretting about how lonely he feels.

The film was a cinematic still birth.

krudler

I'd rather watch Superman IV than Returns again, at least that has laughably brilliant special effects, and its still better than Richard Pryor Builds A Supercomputer: Featuring Superman! aka the third movie.

If they do a Returns sequel then for the love of god either re-introduce Zod (Jude Law ftw) or bring in aother supervillain like Doomsday or Brainiac, no more Luthor and his "more land, fnaaarrr!" carnie act.

TonyD79

A Lex Luthor more in line with the comics/smallville can work with another villian. They could easily have several of his enemies if they made a new trilogy as long as they dont go down the whole spiderman 3 route. Routh was fine as Superman imo. SR has many good moments but mixed with loads of unmemorable ones.

PeterIanStaker

Lois Lane was unbelievably f**king annoying. Routh might do better with a new script and director. I'm going to be kind and say the film was forgettable, and the only good thing was the theme music.

ztoical

It failed cus there were too many dead people in it - poor auld Brando is brought back and they went out of their way to cast someone who didn't look like superman but like Christopher Reeve - even had his widow ok the choice. It just felt really creepy watching it.

Anakin.S

I think the problem is that a Superman Fan made the movie.

All the really good superhero movies are made with little or no input from fans of said superhero

ztoical

Anakin.S wrote: »

I think the problem is that a Superman Fan made the movie.

All the really good superhero movies are made with little or no input from fans of said superhero

Said fan also made the first two X-men movies which he is also a fan of and they are far better then the piece of crap that is X3 made by a non fan.

RoRoCullen

A great film! Kevin Spacey owned it as Lex.
But it was the son. Obviously.
I mean imagine Batman 3 and Christian Bale has this secret love child????
No, just no lol

Anakin.S

ztoical wrote: »

Said fan also made the first two X-men movies which he is also a fan of and they are far better then the piece of crap that is X3 made by a non fan.

I didn't think Singer was an X-men fan before he made X-men.

opinion guy

Hmm got to say - I thought the lead guy was uncanny in his impersonation of Christopher Reeves - expecially as Clarke.

Personally I liked this film, it entertained me for a few hours. But one thing that really grated on me was the CONSTANT playing of the superman theme tune. THere wasn't a 5 minute segment where you didnt' hear...dan dan dan dan ....etc...

jaykhunter

I reckon it's really difficult to make Superman really appeal to a general audience. He's a perfect cub-scout with every super power. He was really made before superheroes (the term coined after him) had to have a character as well as a super-power... I reckon it takes great writing and acting to make you love such a good guy.

(For example, Batman and Wolverine are flawed characters, which is endearing)

Anyway, my main gripe with Superman Returns is that it's not that interesting. Superman never seems in peril, Luthor is only interested in land, Superman himself is not that interesting as a character. I think Kate Bosworth was a terrible, lifeless Lois Lane (my favourite being the sassy and strong Teri Hatcher). Did anyone else feel like you were watching a Benetton Ad? It seemed like Singer said "bring me one actor of every colour" before they started filming :pac: It seemed like he was trying to hit every demographic.

Routh looked great! He was just really, really young and his acting wasn't very confident. But i'd be happy seeing him reprise the role.

I'm not a big fan of Superboy. That said, I did go see it twice; even if it was ruined by talkative Indians describing the film over the phone (i was in Mangalore at the time) so i'm sure that didn't help the film!

ztoical

Anakin.S wrote: »

I didn't think Singer was an X-men fan before he made X-men.

He was no more a fan of x-men before making the film then he was of superman. He said comic books were unintelligent literature. He finally read the x-books after turning down X-men twice and changed his mind so while not a fanboy fan he became a fan of the books and related to the material before accepting the offer to direct.

He admitted after directing Superman he'd never read the comics and based the film more off Superman the pop culture icon.

I actually like Superman Returns but can see why some people dislike it. The main reason seems to have to do with the character of Superman. In Returns he's an absentee father who returns and seems intent on breaking up a perfectly happy family.

opinion guy

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually like Superman Returns but can see why some people dislike it. The main reason seems to have to do with the character of Superman. In Returns he's an absentee father who returns and seems intent on breaking up a perfectly happy family.

People keep giving him **** abuot this in this thread. He DIDN'T KNOW he had a kid!

krudler

opinion guy wrote: »

People keep giving him **** abuot this in this thread. He DIDN'T KNOW he had a kid!

And going by the movie continuity Lois had no idea the kid was Supermans either, since he wiped her memory at the end of Superman 2, and singer has said its a direct continuation of that timeline, which in turn makes Superman a jealous stalker who essentially date raped Lois Lane

Singer was a good choice for X-Men because as a gay Jewish guy he would have had plenty of adversity to overcome growing up, and the X-Men movies relate to a lot of that sort of thing

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

People keep giving him **** abuot this in this thread. He DIDN'T KNOW he had a kid!

He still spent the film trying to break up a happy family.

Returns fails as it tried far too hard to follow the Donner films. Rather than create it's own identity it rehashed a tired old plot about Luthor. I do like the film and will watch it whenever it's on DVD aswell as throwing the DVD on every few months but had Singer made his own Superman film I think it would have been much better received.

Sleazus

opinion guy wrote: »

People keep giving him **** abuot this in this thread. He DIDN'T KNOW he had a kid!

My problem with this arc can be neatly summed up in the below clip...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytqV6GEHW24

"So they thought the best way to make you relatable to young people was to make you an illegitimate father?"