Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Superman Related Likes and Dislikes about the previous Superman movie, "Superman Returns"

With the upcoming hoopla about "Man of Steel" (which I have to say looks pretty promising), I am thinking back to the most recent Superman movie, "Superman Returns". It was widely considered a failure.

What, in your opinion, contributed to this feeling? Did you like parts of the movie? What did you dislike? I'm interested in the opinions of fellow Superman fans.

I've said this before, but what ruined Superman Returns it was the casting of Lois Lane. Kate Bosworth was much too young to play the highly successful reporter who had a son, while Superman was off planet. It would have meant that the Daily Planet reporter had been top of her field by the time she was 17 (Kate was only 23 when the movie was released). It was ludicrous. If the plot hadn't hinged on the fact that Lois was supposed to be a top reporter BEFORE Superman left for Krypton, but was just a young woman Clark had met before he left (perhaps in college), who fought her way to the top of her field while being a single mother, that would have been one thing. But it was totally unbelievable that she was supposed to be a 30 some-odd y.o. woman. Sorry. No. That character was less plausible than a man who flies.

Other than her age, Lois was portrayed as whiny and weak. She wasn't inspiring, or witty, or strong, only bitter. If Lois had ended up a single mother, you've got to believe that she would have been more a Mad Dog than our Lois was in the Pilot with a tender side we would see with her son. This Lois had been broken by Superman. This Lois *needed* a man to make her complete (hence "Richard"). This wasn't a character we could love.

Parker Posey was great as Kitty Kowalski, but she would have been a better choice as Lois Lane than Kate Bosworth was. She has both edginess and beauty. She would have been able to show anger at Superman's disappearance and reappearance without whining. She's a better actress (sorry, Kate, stick to rom-coms), and could have held her own against the ageless man of steel (not to mention she would have been the right age!).

I must say that Kevin Spacey did make an excellent Lex Luthor.

Brandon Routh was okay at Superman, but seemed to be copying Christopher Reeves as Clark. He needed to make the character his own. He didn't do that (but I don't think that was entirely his fault, since I hear that what the producers wanted.) After seeing a realistic Clark in LnC, it was sad to see that they went back to this old goofball model. Gee, Clark you disappeared when Superman did, and return a week before he does... five years later. What a coincidence! :rolleyes:

The continuity also was lacking. It made no sense that Superman would go on a 5 year trip to Krypton "on the spur of the moment" to see if anyone had survived. I'm sorry but I was already bored 10 minutes into the film. He couldn't take 5 minutes to talk to Lois before he left? Please. :rolleyes: What a jerk!

It made no sense that there was now a Kryptonite island. So, now there's a no-mans-land where SM can't fly? >> but I've got my own epic to work on. I'll hand my club to the next person ready to take a whack at that lame movie.

^^ Mostly what Virginia said.

Kate Bosworth sucked, the writers sucked, the whole continuity issue of the previous four/two movies it was supposed to follow, the mostly wooden performances (though a lot of that I still blame on the writers-- when it's just one bad actor that's one thing, but when Oscar-winning Frank Langella is a shadow of a character as well, then we gotta face facts).

I don't know though. I still can't help but love the movie, just as I loved all four of the previous Superman movies (yes, even the Quest for Peace). It's corny but in a good way at some points. I agree that Kevin Spacey made an excellent Lex Luthor and honestly he's going to be the character I'm going to have the most difficult time parting with in the new movie(s). Okay, so the Kryptonite mountain was shark-jumpy at best (I'd have preferred it with Luthor simply stabbing him with the dagger as he did). And they really didn't need to give him a kid (besides the hell that it wreaked on the previous canon, it was kind of forced). But all in all, I can't say I hated it. It got me looking into fanfic in the first place (mostly to solve its many problems...).

Funny stuff:

Superman reminescing
Kryptonite (#4)

^If you got time, or are looking to procrastinate, these videos are a great place to start. Then move on to After Hours, etc. I've probably mentioned it before, but it's just so

I agree 100% with Virginia about Superman not even taking a few minutes to say goodbye to Lois before heading out.

Actually, the movie didn't give him sufficient motivation for his five-year mission. I understand that the original script was better in that regard, but what actually made it to film just seemed out of character.

Superman just did not act in the ways a hero should act: He was self-indulgent, self-centered, even a stalker. (Yes, I know -- "our" Clark hovered outside of Lois' window, too. I didn't like that scene, either.)

The movie seemed more like a soap opera than what a Superman movie should be. Superman movies should, IMHO, be a mixture of action (not the part I particularly care for, but necessary to draw the crowds), light romance (*NOT* having Superman and Lois jumping into the sack before they are even married, and *NOT* having mind-wipe kisses thereafter), and inspiration. One should leave a Superman movie filled with hope and other positive feelings. For me, "Superman Returns" fails on almost all counts.

Fortunately, if the trailers are anything to go by, MoS will be *much* better.

Joy,
Lynn

I was talking about the movie with a co-worker, and he said, "So what's he going to do now, be a deadbeat dad?"

Yep. Superman. Deadbeat dad. /sigh/

Just one of the problems with the movie.

Well, lets start with my disclaimer. I liked it enough that I own a copy. But that doesn't really say too much since I also own copies of all of the Christopher Reeve movies.

The Bad:
1. Kate Bosworth. Too young! VirginiaR outlined all my issues with Lois's age so I will simply ditto her comments. I don't object to a young Lois Lane, but in the context of this story, it was beyond ridiculous.
2. Brandon Routh: Too stiff!
3. The story. Poor. Clark's reason for disappearing and the whole “gone for 5 years” thing. Stupid!!! (Not every idea that comes to mind deserves being made into a story!) The basis of Luthor getting out of prison was unbelievable. The Clark/Lois/Richard triangle was – well, I don't know how to describe it, but I found it more of a distraction than an interesting plot. The fact that they left it unresolved at the end of the movie simply shows how bad the writing was. The Kryptonite island and the destruction of Metropolis... huh?

I think ultimately, I would have forgiven the rest if the story was any good. This movie began and ended with a horribly bad story idea. In my opinion, the basic story of both III and IV were better. The execution of those movies was worse, but the ideas were better.


The Good:
1. Production quality. I thought they did a good job with what they had.
2. Dandello's extension/resolution. Plane Storm makes this movie worth seeing.

Bob

I think my opinions about the movie have already been stated by others. I can't stand that they made Superman have an out-of-wedlock son that he never knew about. Most of the fan fiction I've read that jumps off from the movie either finds a way to off Richard (killing him or having him and Lois break up, which usually goes badly) or Lois stays with Richard and Clark is miserable for the rest of his life. Pretty depressing when that's the happiest ending that the fans can come up with.

The other thing is that it was supposedly a sequel to Superman II, but at the end of that movie when Superman returns the flag to the roof of the White House he promises the President that he won't desert us again. That's a pretty poor jumping off point for him to leave inexplicably for 5 years. I've heard the argument that it's actually a sequel to the Richard Donner cut, but why make a sequel to a director's cut of a 27-year-old movie? Bleh. Doesn't make sense.

I would have to agree with you there, especially since most of the people who went to see Superman Returns didn't have access to, or even knew about the Donner cut, let alone seen it, at the time the movie was released.

I remember when I rewatched Superman II a year or two ago, I decided to watch the Donner cut. Then rewatched the theatrical version to refresh my memory on what was different. I don't remember how the Donner cut ended (except the memory wipe kiss was still included and Lois's babble may have been longer), but I do recall that I hadn't liked it as much as the theatrical release version. (Personally, I liked the cheesy Superman bringing back the flag to the White House bit.) The only thing that I can recall liking better about the Donner cut was that there was more in it about Lois figuring out that CK=SM and trying to out him. And I think there was more action. As I said, I've only watched it once several years ago. Clearly the differences didn't make much of an impact on me.

Can anyone refresh my memory on how the Donner cut ended?

Bobbart, I can confess to owning a copy of it as well. I bought a used copy for $1.99 (back when I was rewatching the Chris Reeves versions, which were showing for free on Netflix instant list) to refresh my memory. It was cheaper than renting it. I figured that my memory of watching it in the theatres was biased, and it couldn't have been as horrible as I remembered, and I needed to watch it again to make sure. I thought I might like it better now that I was more familiar with the Superman canon. Nope. It was a cringefest for the entire viewing.

I own a copy too (psychologically, I want to be a completist.) I think it's worth having for the plane rescue scene, where he uses pretty much all of his canonical powers.

Plus the earthquake stuff is pretty good too - saving the guy falling from the crane, zipping underground faster than the natural gas so the city doesn't explode, incinerating the falling window glass with his heat vision. The action scenes were pretty good.

Have to go along with preferring the action sequences (most of them) to the rest of it - excepting the silly "let's let hundreds of ricochets fly out over the city" scene with the chain gun. What it really needed was a LOT more rationale for Superman to leave Earth, a more mature Lois, and better acting all round.

Having said that, I did eventually write my Supergirl Returns series as a result of seeing it, so I shouldn't complain too much.

I remember when this came out. I had just started getting back into the Superman fandom (I'd been a fan before but not really involved in the fandom in any manner) and had been interested in seeing it. I saw a promo on TV with my then fiance (we were only a month away from marrying) and said that I wanted to see it. "You mean a Superman movie where Lois is married and had a child with someone else?" I went 'wha???' I just couldn't wrap my mind around it at all. It didn't make any sense to me. What I later found out about it as time went by leading up to the release of the movie (only a month after we got married) turned me off from this film, saying "It's not my Superman." I love the Reeve movies, adore the Fleischer shorts, enjoy the (80-90s) comics, even watched both Lois and Clark and the Animated Series when they were on TV but I couldn't bring myself to set foot in the theater out of loyalty for the character (and how my ship had been torn asunder when my own Superman and I had just gotten married.)

I did later rent the movie and later purchased it out of the closeout bin as I did like Routh's version of Clark. The premise of his leaving still bothered me but I had read a fanfiction written by kalalanekent (over on ffic.net or LJ) called "Little Secrets" that really put it in perspective enough that I could handwave it away for the duration of my time watching the film. I do strongly recommend Little Secrets and it's sequels for those that enjoy the Reeve films as they had closely based the characterization of Kal-El/Clark and Lois on the Reeve movies instead of the "Superman Returns" but followed the storyline of the movie (making it a stronger fic than even the movie was.)

I haven't watched the film, and really do not think I ever will.

The plot is horrible, and the plot holes are imense. There is no good reason for Superman to go back to Krypton, building on the memory wipe kiss is a horrible idea, and Superman not saying good bye to Lois is just an unworkable plan.

Virginia, the Donner cut ended with Superman turning back time, not the mind-wipe kiss.

SI and SII were filmed together and were supposed to be a more cohesive story, but when the director changed mid-stream things went awry, and they ended up using the turn-back-time ending in SI instead of SII. The warhead that Superman diverted from Hackensack, NJ was supposed to be what freed Zod & Co. from the Phantom Zone at the end of SI, and the movie would have ended with Zod yelling that he was free. Instead, we ended up with Lois almost blowing up with the Eifel tower, and that bomb opened up the Phantom Zone.

If you really think about the consequences, having Superman turn back time is a much more personally tragic and much less creepy ending than the memory-wipe kiss. He can still remember his weekend away with Lois, but to her it never happened. It's not just that she doesn't remember it. He's willing to sacrifice his relationship to save the world from ever having been taken over by Zod.

I prefer certain parts of the Donner cut to the theatrical version, specifically the way that Lois proves that CK=SM. I never liked that Superman was defeated by a pink bear rug. It's much more "spunky Lois" to have her pull a gun on Clark to out him.

I've never seen the Donner cut so I can't say anything there, but I like Mrs. M's description of how the movies were originally scripted better than anything I paid to see.

Liked Kevin Spacey.

I had a whole page of stuff I don't like that I just deleted because I realize that I don't remember the movie well enough to critique it. A few points, though.

Superman Returns lost me about 5 minutes into the movie. Gone to another star system and returned in 5 years? There's a world-changing technology that made remarkably little impact on society. Apollo gave us silicone tub caulk and better computers--what did anyone get from the Kryptonian milk-run?

Luthor building his own continent? The scientific resources of a civilization hundreds of years beyond our own at his fingertips and the best idea he had was to make a big island? No flying car plans in that vast database?

Completely inappropriate applications of technology. Superman went to Krypton, Luthor got his island and I didn't get my flying car. (Now... if Luthor had built a flying car first then the whole movie would've ended differently!)

Hmmmm. I must have only seen the Superman II cut and not the Superman I Donner cut, because now that you've refreshed my memory I remember thinking how hokey it was to use the turning back time device twice (to end both films), which is why I hadn't liked his ending to SM-II.

Of course, it wouldn't explain how she got pregnant per Superman Returns, now does it?

Yeah, that was also one of the things I didn't like about SM-R was the whole "where did he get the spaceship from" dilemma. If Krypton had the technology to create such a craft before it exploded (hence the information would have been in the crystal databank), wouldn't THEY have used it to save more people than Kal-El from the dying planet?

Originally posted by Mrsmxyzptlk 100% Agreed! I love the Donner Cut (though I own both versions of the movie).

They didn't release a Donner cut of Superman I. The intended ending for that movie is at the beginning of the Donner cut of SII.


Yeah, that's another compelling reason why it doesn't make sense to argue that Superman Returns is a sequel to the Donner cut.

Good point! Krypton didn't have space travel until Jor-El invented it! And even then, all he had time to design was a prototype that would only fit a baby.

Your explanation makes sense. Krypton could have also had space travel but not star travel before the explosion. In that case, I guess there might have been something on another planet in Krypton's system worth investigating.

Mmm... I don't know about that. First off, I don't know what would have been there to investigate-- the sun went nova. And secondly, having their sun go nova would basically eliminate all of the planets in the system completely. Anywhere that they may have hypothetically travelled wouldn't have made it. Short of them actually being able to travel long distances (which we knoew they weren't) then it was a long shot to have been able to find any such technology. My bet would be that the spaceship was somehow made at the Fortress, but I have no idea how Superman expected anything to be there. Clark should be smarter than that. (Oh wait, this is the same guy who did the memory wipe kiss... huh.) Well, nevermind then. There's a boatload of stuff that doesn't add up about this movie.

Been a long while since I've seen the movies--I thought the planet had exploded like in L&C.

OK, so Clark flew 2 years and many light years to hang out in the center of this:



Yeah. Right. The MWK isn't looking so bad after all.

I forget--did Superman give a "world of heroes" farewell or did he just disappear, leaving a power vacuum? I seem to remember it sucked because of that, too.