Superman Returns, why did it fail?

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.

sprinkles

Kess73 wrote: »

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.

They reinvented his screen persona. That's the problem with Superman, they are effectively ignoring the source material for the most part. It's something I really don't understand as there is so much great material out there that screenwriters can draw upon... but very few do.

the_monkey

my !! ... this thread has some life in it !!!

that guy Kevin Smith (someone posted youtube link earlier in thread) is awesome ... i have been checking out some of his other stuff on youtube...

Sleazus

sprinkles wrote: »

They reinvented his screen persona. That's the problem with Superman, they are effectively ignoring the source material for the most part. It's something I really don't understand as there is so much great material out there that screenwriters can draw upon... but very few do.

Really? Is there?

I like Supes, I really do, but the best material - the cream of the crop - pretty much takes place in alternate universes. As if the only way writers can get at what he is is to explore what he isn't or shouldn't be. All-Star Superman, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?, Red Son and even The Dark Knight Returns. None of which is particularly easy to adapt. The only amazing in-continuity story I can think of is Alan Moore's For the Man Who Has Everything.

Contrast that with Batman, who has some excellent out-of-continuity stuff - like The Dark Knight Returns or even Gotham By Gaslight - but most of the classics are fairly straightforward: Year One, The Long Halloween and so on.

conorhal

opinion guy wrote: »

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 ?

Emmmm... perhaps for the same reason Max Mosley likes Nazi hookers to beat his balls, powerful men do welcome the opportunity for a bit of submissiveness, perhaps it's an S&M thing?

sprinkles

Sleazus wrote: »

Really? Is there?

I like Supes, I really do, but the best material - the cream of the crop - pretty much takes place in alternate universes. As if the only way writers can get at what he is is to explore what he isn't or shouldn't be. All-Star Superman, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?, Red Son and even The Dark Knight Returns. None of which is particularly easy to adapt. The only amazing in-continuity story I can think of is Alan Moore's For the Man Who Has Everything.

Contrast that with Batman, who has some excellent out-of-continuity stuff - like The Dark Knight Returns or even Gotham By Gaslight - but most of the classics are fairly straightforward: Year One, The Long Halloween and so on.

I'm not even going to try and go toe to toe with you on the source material side of things, I'm not a huge fan of superman in the first place and have only read a handful of story arcs, so when you say there isn't much there to draw upon I have to accept your word. However, there has to be something that can be taken from the comics that is better than what we have been given on the big screen!? I find it hard to believe there's not a villain that could be done well on film other than Lex.

jaykhunter

Does it not make sense that Superman is an alien so it'd be fine to have him face another alien (say Doomsday or someone) and have the fight on earth? Kinda like transformers I guess.

I don't think I could take another Lex as the main bad guy!

Can someone who knows their stuff w/r/t Superman comics list out a few comic book baddies who'd be awesome on the big screen against good ol' CK? I know there's a few of you lol maybe add in some pics too

Kess73

Doomsday.

Strong enough to go toe to toe with Supes and then some. Was responsible for killing Supes during a slugfest between the two that raged literally across America destroying anything they fought their way through. No middle ground with him, he kills anything in his path.











Metallo.

Cyborg.Strong and able to scrap with Supes, although not to the degree that Doomsday can. Has a Kryptonite heart which causes serious probs for Supes in a fist fight.

As someone else said, picture a terminator with a Kryptonite heart.





























Gog.



Basically was rescued from a radio active Kansas as a kid, and grew up seeing Supes as a god. When Supes tells him that he is wrong he snaps and decides that Supes is a demon not a god. He gets powers from some cosmic beings and basically time travels and dimension hops, murdering as many versions of Superman as he can.

He also nicks Supes kid in another timeline.

Super powerful and can slug with Supes. Has no problem killing anyone that gets between him and Supes.


.










Hank Henshaw.

Cyborg/Electronic life form

Super strong, super smart, super insane. Tried to pass himself off as a returning Supes after Doomsday killed Supes. If destrroyed, he can transfer his life essence into anything mechanical, even over huge distance. Can them shape and manipulate that machine to any form he likes and abosrb Supes genetic coding to gain most of Supes powers too.

Sleazus

You forgot Brainiac, which is a super-intelligent articifial lifeform which travels through space absorbing all knowledge and destroying whoever it learns this from (in order to prevent it becoming out-dated).

He's been done several times, with varying degrees of hokey-ness, but I do think there's huge potential. In some versions, he even began as the planetary computer of Krypton, which knew about the supernova that would destroy the planet, but didn't tell anyone. So it ties back to his origin.

Handsome Bob

For some reason I was sure that he's go with Brainiac, but Nolan ruled that, as well as Luther, out. Great rundown of the potential villains Kess, if I was forced to pick one I'd say Doomsday.

Sigh, remember the days when Nicolas Cage was supposed to be Superman and Jack Black was meant to be Brainiac?

Kess73

LZ5by5 wrote: »

For some reason I was sure that he's go with Brainiac, but Nolan ruled that, as well as Luther, out. Great rundown of the potential villains Kess, if I was forced to pick one I'd say Doomsday.

Sigh, remember the days when Nicolas Cage was supposed to be Superman and Jack Black was meant to be Brainiac?

Yeah all versions of Brainiac (bloody shame as there were some that may have worked well) and Zod ( seems it was the Russian version of Zod that was looked at and not the Zod from Krypton) were ruled out.


Parasite was another I almost included, as were Darkseid, Conduit and Manchester Black with his cronies.


I still maintain a trilogy is what is needed. Tough bad guy in the first one, which leads to an ending where Doomsday is briefly seen underground starting to escpae.


Second one is a take on the Death of Supes storyline, so it has Doomsday kicking the hell out of everyone and everything.

Third one could be a take on the return of Supes storyline, so Henshaw would naturally slot in there as the main bad guy and could even mess around with the storyline to end it with a hint of the coming of Imperiex.

Imperiex being capable of taking on the whole JLA, Supes, Doomsday, Darkseid and others.