ROTTEN TOMATOES: Brandon Routh Talks Superman's Future Comments

Brandon Routh Talks Superman's Future

by | July 03, 2009

Summary

Whatever happens next for the "Superman" franchise, it appears that Brandon Routh won't be wearing that big "S" and cape -- in a new interview, he says his contract with Warner Bros. has expired. Back to Article

(21-40 of 98 posts) | Reply

Shauna R. writes:
on Jul 03 2009 10:58 AM

I sigh every time I think about how amazing X-men 3 would have been if Singer didn't leave it to make this crap re-hash of a movie. Sorry, I'm not trying to troll or anything, it seems like many of you liked the movie, but this movie really brought nothing new to the table for Superman. Everyone and their mom knows Superman's back story, why make a movie about it AGAIN? Do you guys remember how freaking awesome X2 was? I would forgive Singer and be very grateful if he went back to X-men.

Oh, and someone mentioned giving Sam Worthington the role as Superman in a reboot and making it more gritty. I think that is an awesome idea! I would love to see a NEW take on Superman. Change it up a bit! But they won't for fear of fanboy wrath and the risk they would be taking. That is probably why I love Batman so much more, because it is dirty, gritty and intense.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 03 2009 11:35 AM

In reply to this comment (#2520903)
I always imagined a Superman movie that was like a dramatized display of Olympian Gods duking it out in the city. This of course would require a heavy hitting villian. But at the same time I've always envisioned something along the lines of one of the great epic war poems from the minds of the ancients.

I see great battles waged over the subject of great emotional conflicts giving the story its life and gravitas. I see, like many of you, the entire world threatened. Perhaps by Brainiac or Doomsday, Darkseid or some other incredible force. I see a continuation of Lex's obsession to paint Superman a villain set against the natural evolutionary course of human life. A crutch making us weak, incapable of overcoming ourselves. This contrast where Lex in full on Machevillian form positions himself as a hero with the sort of influence that eventually lands him in the white house. What happens if the very world that Superman is risking his life to save comes to truly turn its back on him? What if the world hated Superman, feared him, sought to turn him away from them in the interest of availing their Will to live?

There was a great story in the comic where intergelactic Watchers attempted to convince Superman that he was bad for humanity. How's that for darkness? It's the perfect premise on which WB could explore their 'let's make it dark' obsession. And it doesn't come into conflict with cannon.

How about a little imagination? How about some guts?

(Reply to this)

M.C.P. writes:
on Jul 03 2009 12:08 PM

Liked SR, even though it was a homage to Richard Donner's Superman The Movie.
So I say bring on another, Routh was fine a Supe and Singer seems to have nothing goin for him; unless he jumps back on to a X-Men movie.

Ya, new bad guy, Darkseid, Brainiac (Brainiac w/ fused Lex), Bizzaro Supe, Mongul and maybe Toyman or a new Zod?!
Choose your pick many to select from, more action and some fights in the air like at the end of the 3rd Matrix.

"Come son of Jor-El, kneel before Zod! Snootchie-bootchies. Ehehehehe!"

(Reply to this)

Ultimale069 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 12:16 PM

If you want to see everything the Superman movies should be- go check out the 90's animated show, season 3- any episode with Darkseid kicked so much A.S.S. The writers knew how to write superman- hell they used to be comic book writers! Oh, and Lex Luther is an awesome villain if he is done well- take a look at what they did in Justice League Unlimited.

Aw screw hollywood, I am just going to go back and watch the DC animated Universe because those shows were better than the comic books they were based on. Long live Timm, Dini, and co!

(Reply to this)

Shantak writes:
on Jul 03 2009 12:19 PM

I really enjoyed SR, but it was not anywhere near BB. In BB I was never bored, not for one second, the movie could have been another hour and I would have ate it up. In SR there were moments I was bored, though it is still an awesome movie, on of the best Superhero movies we have, though my age might have something to do with that. The problems with SR are the reasons I loved it, it was an homage peice to Donner, Routh was perfect as a new adaptation of Reeve and they touched on some great themes from the comics about always being an outsider, the amount of power he truely has, recharging with the sun and many more.

The biggest issue with a reboot again that I see is you will run into the Hulk issue, while the latest was a pretty damn good film, it wasn't as successful because too many remembered the Ang Lee version, it was just too soon. Also if they reboot they will attempt to make it extremely dark and Superman will flop if it's dark.

(Reply to this)

De4ective Detectiv3 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 12:56 PM

Honstely, I think the two Hulk movies are about even. The first Hulk was well crafted but the action fell flat. The second one improved on Banner's inner turmoil, but the Hulk just came off as a cartoon character. I thought they needed to give more attention to detail and scale, juxtapose the Hulk w/ more objects to get his size across. They always depict him as this invincible being, I wanted to explore his limits. I wanted to see how he overcomes those limits. That would make his powers more impressive. It's like the filmmakers blow their whole Hulk wad in the first action sequence.

As far as Batman Begins goes, that movie was just forgetable. They go to all this trouble trying to establish his character, and they don't even give him a worthy villian, and the villians he did get barely got any screen time. A superhero is no better than the villian he faces. Plus, there just wasn't enough action, and the little action it had was poorly shot.

I also thought it was kind of cheesy how they try and go for a realistic approach to Batman, then they have him riding over rooftops in his Batmobile. Joel Shumacher would be proud. And the way Gotham was depicted, it never takes on its own personality. It feels like they could be in any random city. But then again, that is the problem I have w/ Nolan in general, his style has no personality.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 03 2009 01:14 PM

In reply to this comment (#2520932)
You've gotta be kidding.

(Reply to this)

De4ective Detectiv3 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 01:45 PM

Not in the least bit. I think they could still make a great Hulk movie, but they haven't. He just comes across as a cartoon character. I thought the action in Transformers was more engaging.

As far as BB goes, I thought that movie was overrated. I went to the midnight showing, and afterwards, I looked over at my gf, and we both shared the same confused look. That was what we were thinking - they've got to be kidding.

Nolan really doesn't have alot of personality to his style. Gotham just seems generic, like it has no life of its own. Why should we care about this city or its people? The score was TOO low key, it was only effective in a few parts. They pretend that this is supposed to be a more realistic take, but Batman is way to reliant on his far fetched gadgets. Overall, BB barely felt like a comic book movie. I thought the best thing about BB was Tom Wilkinson's character.

I think what made TDK so successful was the fact that it did have a strong villian. Heath Ledger's performance basically held together the whole movie.

(Reply to this)

frogboy writes:
on Jul 03 2009 01:52 PM

Superman Returns is a perfectly respectable film, but the writers fell short. They relied too heavily on previous films and failed to leave their own unique mark. The only new items introduced were a little clumsy, incongruent and poorly explained (Kryptonite's effect changed potency and the idea of Superman having a son).

Lex is a good villian and Spacey was good in the role, but there's only so much an actor can do with the words he is given.

Lois was actually interestingly written, but the part was given to an actress void of charisma, charm or wit. Lois had no spunk.

Routh provided a great performance, but there was not enough action to balance the moody portions and that rendered him the emo-Superman.

The time has passed to jump back on to this incarnation. The contracts have run out and that's okay. So they'll probably pick another Clark. I hope they do it right. Create the world from the ground up using the comic book as reference. People keep thinking that Nolan's Batman works because it is dark. Not true. It works because it is researched instead of copied, relatable instead of alien and it's not focus tested. Nolan made some bold brave choices. That's what pays off. Nolan's Batman is human, but we could have better related to the alien aspects of Singer's Superman had he dialed up the universal themes of an outsider and played down the god-like elements a little more. At least for the first film.

Routh or not, I hope Superman will return and stay a while.

(Reply to this)

Magic is Might writes:
on Jul 03 2009 02:55 PM

Matanuki, the only thing superior about Superman Returns over Transformers 1 and 2 is the acting. The story is weak if not weaker than T2 and the action is boring and not interesting. A Reboot is needed for Superman. Get a guy who can act and yet fills out the suit and get a new villain and they are good to go.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 03 2009 02:59 PM

In reply to this comment (#2520902)
Fine, then by that definition every movie that goes 120 mil over that budget isn't making a profit. How then do movie keep getting made? What you say might be true, but you forgot to mention the money made on DVD, Blu-Ray sales and the marketing of toys and other agreements they had with companies like McDonalds. I think it's safe to say people made money off this movie. If they didn't then Hollywood will be closing down very soon because if you need to generate those kinds of profits to stay in business then only The Dark Knight and Titanic and probably half a dozen other movies made any kind of serious profit for the industry.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 03 2009 03:04 PM

In reply to this comment (#2520932)
While I'd agree he didn't focus visually on the landscape of Gotham ala Tim Burton, he did give enough views of it that it wasn't entirely ignored. Wayne Tower, The Mono-Rail and the Narrows were iconically Gotham I thought, plus he did a much better job fleshing out other aspects of Gotham, namely the people that make up it's population.

As for the Hulk, I thought he was much less cartoonish in the latter version than the Lee version. That was a major problem with Ang Lee's Hulk, along with mutant dogs and crazy hippie Nick Nolte performance, the feel Lee was going with for the rest of the film really clashed with the film it became when the Hulk was on screen. To me it was almost as noticeable as that moment in From Dusk til Dawn when Salma Hayek sprouts a snake head and starts biting people.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 03 2009 03:08 PM

In reply to this comment (#2520980)
That's the final proof. I was waiting for Magic to comment on Superman Returns. If he'd gone pro, there might have been a fraction of a doubt that he was Captain of Team Loyalty, but sadly no. The proverbial jig is up. Welcome back Cap, I for one missed you, though I think SR had a much better story than Transformers 2, but far inferior action and much less of it. In many ways SR is kinda the anti-Transformers 2.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 03 2009 03:44 PM

In reply to this comment (#2520980)
If the story's not there, I don't care how many things blow up.

(Reply to this)

Ninerfan writes:
on Jul 03 2009 04:18 PM

I didnt like Spacey as Luthor he was boring you cant even compare him to Gene Hackman. The story of Superman Returns could have been alot better the story didnt make to much sense what was Luthor going to do with all that rock in the middle of the ocean? But all it's faults I still liked it just for Brandon Routh he was great.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 03 2009 04:24 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521006)
People always bring that up, but it wasn't just a bunch of rock. Krypton was a crystal based technology so once you learned how to use it the sky's the limit with what you could do. The fortress of solitude was all rocks, everything on Krypton was all rocks. I agree though, it wasn't very well explained in the movie.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 03 2009 04:49 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521007)
I'd have been happy with something, anything, along the lines of an acceptable explanation for HOW Superman managed to pick up the damn thing. Let alone throw it into space.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Jul 03 2009 04:56 PM

I found Superman Returns boring, but that's mostly because I find Superman boring. All the elements were there, especially Routh. He worked really well, I though.

If WB has a problem with Superman's box office numbers, it's probably more from a lackadaisical response to the character in this day and age.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Jul 03 2009 04:58 PM

In reply to this comment (#2520932)
"A superhero is no better than the villian he faces."

No, a villain serves to bring out a hero's true character.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 03 2009 05:34 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521021)
Same thing. Different words.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Superman Returns

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links