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?"

me-skywalker

Because the back story has had the life DRAINED out of it by smallville!

expectationlost

bryan singer claims that people didn't like it because it was a romance story, but we all could appreciate there was far more chemistry in the originals, he still doesn't get why it failed, refuses too, and could be making another one.

we didn't get to see him be impressed by lois and fall in love with her, to then lets us feel his hurtful dilemma of intervening, he just turned up in the film that way.

why was it ****, the girl was ****

nickhaydens

I could probably go on for a long time about this. But i agree with most of what I've read here so far. BAAAAAAD casting of Lois Lane is a big one. She's one of the lead roles.
The jimmy olsen character is not as believable as he used to be with his dickie bow and his pullover.
Lex luthor wasnt quite sinister enough and I actually feel that two of the best characters were James Marsden's character and Lex's female companion, Kitty.

Now onto the son of Superman ....... for feck sake!!!! First of all, Superman leaves to find Krypton 5 years ago. the kid is 5 years old. Which means Lois was about to pop as he left. the story doesnt add up unless you see Superman as abandoning the kid.

The storyline was rubbish and had lex doing everything he did in the first couple of movies (looking for land, visiting the fortress blah blah blah). Then we come to the kryptonite element. Superman is stabbed with the Kryptonite, and the "knife" is broken off to be left in him. lois pulls it out. Superman goes and lifts the new land mass into space and falls to earth. he's brought to hospital and they pull a remaining small shard of kryptonite out. If there was any trace of green k in his body, he physically wouldnt be able move never mind lift a land mass MADE OF KRYPTONITE

That's my rant and I've been waiting 4 years to give it. Although here's one element I loved. . . . . The opening sequence with the original music had me at the edge of my seat

Anakin.S

ztoical wrote: »

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

I thought he was a big superman fan for some reason.

the_monkey

I really don't think a character like Doomsday would suit on the big screen,
the average viewer wouldn't like it ...

it's too hard core ... too similar to the comics ...

jaykhunter

the_monkey wrote: »

I really don't think a character like Doomsday would suit on the big screen,
the average viewer wouldn't like it ...

it's too hard core ... too similar to the comics ...

I dunno, going with the most obvious (Luthor) didn't work so trying something drastically different would be fresh. I reckon it doesn't matter as long as the writing and action scenes are good. Clarke and Lois have to have much better chemistry and be brimming with life.

I'm sure whatever they come up with, I'll give it a go

norrie rugger

jaykhunter wrote: »

I dunno, going with the most obvious (Luthor) didn't work so trying something drastically different would be fresh. I reckon it doesn't matter as long as the writing and action scenes are good. Clarke and Lois have to have much better chemistry and be brimming with life.

I'm sure whatever they come up with, I'll give it a go

I think that the other types of character are a stretch, on the screen.

It seems that the makers of all the movies and small screen variations have intently stayed away from other world dangers.
For this reason I think it will be a hard pill for screen fans (who may never have read a comic or watched a cartoon). For them Supes is the only alien character, other than Krypton characters and Brainiac

Sleazus

norrie rugger wrote: »

It seems that the makers of all the movies and small screen variations have intently stayed away from other world dangers.
For this reason I think it will be a hard pill for screen fans (who may never have read a comic or watched a cartoon). For them Supes is the only alien character, other than Krypton characters and Brainiac

Rumour is Brainiac is relaunch writer David S. Goyer's villain of choice.

But yep, I can see why that might be an issue. Give us some earth-bound baddies like Parasite or Metallo (who is basically a Terminator with a Kryptonite heart).

Duggy747

Saw the movie the other day, too.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooring!! The main problem was that Supes didn't really have a threat beyond the ol' green stuff, and we knew that since the beginning of time *yawn* Plus horrible miscasting of Lois Lane, you need a certain actress for that character.

The impersonation of Reeves was impressive though but I couldn't get over the fact how gay he looked in that suit. Reeves was and probably will be the only guy who could pull that look off.

Bah, the original Superman movies will always be the best, I grew up watching them.

Handsome Bob

I didn't care for the child reveal. I think Kate Bosworth got Lois Lane horrificly wrong. I think the characterisation of Clark Kent was a misfire. All that being said it's still a watchable film, it's just a bit underwhelming.

Mal-Adjusted

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I didn't care for the child reveal. I think Kate Bosworth got Lois Lane horrificly wrong. I think the characterisation of Clark Kent was a misfire. All that being said it's still a watchable film, it's just a bit underwhelming.

pretty much sums up my view. i actually liked BR in it, thought he was quite good.

carrolls

In a nutshell, Lois was way too serious, not quirky and funny like the 1978 character played by Margot Kidder, Superman was way too serious, Lex was pretty good, but Spacey is no Gene Hackman. And the special effects gave me a headache.

sprinkles

Superman Returns had 2 big problems:

1. Really sh*t bad guy. I wasn't convinced at any stage that Lex might win. For a Superman film to work he needs a villain that can realistically threaten him, and the audience must believe that he can lose. I felt nothing more than frustration, waiting for the inevitable to happen, never being drawn into the plot (which was awful) and wishing it would end.

2. The originals had a fun comic side to them, played brilliantly by the entire cast - Reeves, Pryor and Hackman were all excellent. They were family films, made in the 80's for family's in the 80's. We have moved on in almost every respect of cinema and society. Batman Begins has reinvented the comic book genre, meanwhile fun family films have matured no end. This aimed for a target that simply doesn't exist anymore. Show a kid the original films now and they would not be overly impressed. Sad but true.

For any future film to work, DC need to take a leaf from the success of the Batman franchise. Reinvent Superman for the current generation.

the_monkey

Sleazus wrote: »

Rumour is Brainiac is relaunch writer David S. Goyer's villain of choice.

But yep, I can see why that might be an issue. Give us some earth-bound baddies like Parasite or Metallo (who is basically a Terminator with a Kryptonite heart).

So Superman is set to be rebooted ???

we need Christopher Nolan on this one !!!

Handsome Bob

the_monkey wrote: »

So Superman is set to be rebooted ???

we need Christopher Nolan on this one !!!

He's the mentor behind the film apparently, with his brother Jonah Nolan is allegedly slated to make his directorial debut.

the_monkey

wow!!! .. nice one ...

the_monkey

the_monkey wrote: »

So Superman is set to be rebooted ???

we need Christopher Nolan on this one !!!

I would much rather a fan of the comic hired to direct. The only reason Nolan was hired was because the producers seem to think that only dark comic book adaptations will work. Superman is a bright, vibrant and colourful character and in the hands of Nolan we will get a much darker entity. Dark suits Batman but not Superman.

Handsome Bob

I wouldn't say Nolan solely focuses on dark tones, rather the way I see it is that he has played to the strengths of Batman. Thus, I'm sure he and his brother will play to the strengths of Superman. They're too clever to be simplistic in their thinking.

opinion guy

Sleazus wrote: »

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

Indeed. Nevermind that. Might I complement you instead on a most awesome username. Kudos.

expectationlost wrote: »

bryan singer claims that people didn't like it because it was a romance story, but we all could appreciate there was far more chemistry in the originals, he still doesn't get why it failed, refuses too, and could be making another one.

we didn't get to see him be impressed by lois and fall in love with her, to then lets us feel his hurtful dilemma of intervening, he just turned up in the film that way.

why was it ****, the girl was ****

To be perfectly honest the romance story NEVER worked for me - in any incarnation of superman. Frankly lois Lane was always a bitch (apart from Terry Hatcher who was ditz incarnate). Oringial films Lois was a wagon and honestly not that attractive. I never ever found it a believeable love story. Frankly I found the Clark Kent - Lana Lane romance from Smalleville to be much more convincing and Lana Lane a far more appealing romantic character than Lois (even the smalleville Lois). Seriously. Superman - hero and all round nice guy - why would he put up with a superambitious wagon who runs thru people for a story when he coul, quite literally, have any woman on the planet and plenty of them are nicer people and better looking ?

nickhaydens wrote: »

Then we come to the kryptonite element. Superman is stabbed with the Kryptonite, and the "knife" is broken off to be left in him. lois pulls it out. Superman goes and lifts the new land mass into space and falls to earth. he's brought to hospital and they pull a remaining small shard of kryptonite out. If there was any trace of green k in his body, he physically wouldnt be able move never mind lift a land mass MADE OF KRYPTONITE

That's my rant and I've been waiting 4 years to give it. Although here's one element I loved. . . . . The opening sequence with the original music had me at the edge of my seat

Um. I thought it was really obvious that the second shard of kryptonite was incurred whilst moving the landmass, no ?

Kess73

sprinkles wrote: »

Superman Returns had 2 big problems:

1. Really sh*t bad guy. I wasn't convinced at any stage that Lex might win. For a Superman film to work he needs a villain that can realistically threaten him, and the audience must believe that he can lose. I felt nothing more than frustration, waiting for the inevitable to happen, never being drawn into the plot (which was awful) and wishing it would end.

2. The originals had a fun comic side to them, played brilliantly by the entire cast - Reeves, Pryor and Hackman were all excellent. They were family films, made in the 80's for family's in the 80's. We have moved on in almost every respect of cinema and society. Batman Begins has reinvented the comic book genre, meanwhile fun family films have matured no end. This aimed for a target that simply doesn't exist anymore. Show a kid the original films now and they would not be overly impressed. Sad but true.

For any future film to work, DC need to take a leaf from the success of the Batman franchise. Reinvent Superman for the current generation.

The newer Batman films did not reinvent the character at all. In fact Batman Begins brought the film version of Batman back in line with the Batman:Year One comic version of the character.

I think Superman needs to be brought more in line with his comic version, a persona type which Christopher Reeves was excellent at channeling.

Supes, imho, needs to be bright, colourful and pretty much a moral compass. What is needed is a powerful villan that can match him physically, but provide the needed contrast by bringing the darkness and immorality that Supes lacks.