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

(1-98 of 98 posts) | Reply

BUCK69 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 05:45 AM

Anyone who knows anything about my opinion on this knows that I think SR was a damn good movie [I'll state right up front that I'm not going to engage in a rehash of the movie's merits], although I'll admit it might have been too character driven and lacked enough conflict and action for some people. But nonetheless, I think that both Routh and Singer should be given a chance to improve on the foundation that they laid with SR. Routh makes a good point about Batman Begins. Although most critics liked the movie, it wasn't a huge blockbuster. Nearly everyone universally agrees the sequel was better, and a major improvement. A follow-up to SR could follow that trend.

(Reply to this)

De4ective Detectiv3 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 05:48 AM

How lame, personally, I'm kind of sick of the whole studio system. Its no wonder they didn't make any money off Superman Returns, they somehow managed to spend nearly 270million filming it!(according to Box Office Mojo) Don't get me wrong, I thought it was an awesome movie, but spending 270 million dollars on any film is just a gamble, especially considering that the movie went on to gross only 390million internationally.

I remember the days when James Cameron was the first director to break the 100million mark w/ Titanic. His new film, Avatar, is said to cost almost 300million. Where will the gluttony of Hollywood end?

(Reply to this)

De4ective Detectiv3 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 05:53 AM

@Buck69

Yeah, I actually thought Superman Returns was much better than Batman Begins. BB just didn't feel like it established the character well enough, there weren't enough iconic moments. It was pretty forgetable.

The only thing I didn't like about Superman Returns was the way they tried to bring his kid into it, to appeal to the younger audience. Other than that, it could have used some more action/Supe fighting bad guys.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Jul 03 2009 06:16 AM

Wasn't sure I was going to comment, but I needed to add my own 'WHathefu?!?!' moment when I hear people talking about 'Superman Returns' being better than 'Batman Begins.'

Not enough iconic moments? What about when he's doing his nightwatch moment, standing on the pillar of that sky-scraper while the orchestra broods? What about when he discovers the Bat cave? What about when he jury-rigs the first bat-signal? When he's 'torturing' Flass to get information and he roars 'SWEAR TO ME!' --no joke, some kid pissed himself in the theater in the row in front of me.

To each his own, but D@mn, man. I certainly didn't hate SR, but I can't even put it in the same dimension as BB.

Back on topic- I respect and trust Brian Singer, though I didn't particularly like Routh as Superman. The only lament I have is i'm just so godd@mned tired of 'reboots' and the whole culture of necessary excess- Seriously; Even if the movie cost 270 to make (according to Ctrl_), it netted 120 MILLION dollars!! HOW WAS THIS A FAILURE?!?!?

Now we have to sit through yet someone ELSE trying to create this whole thing. Just tired.

(Reply to this)

The D. writes:
on Jul 03 2009 06:30 AM

www.hollywoodreboot.com

August 2009

(Reply to this)

dewright23 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 06:58 AM

My problem with SR, and the original movies is with the portrayal of Lex Luthor. He is not comic relief, he is a serious villain. They need to introduce a different villain that can actually do some damage to Superman. And kill the kid off right at the beginning to really give Superman a reason to fight.

(Reply to this)

Kevin E. writes:
on Jul 03 2009 07:05 AM

In reply to this comment (#2520829)
I have to agree with Batman Begins being way better than Superman Returns. Of course I am a big Batman fan.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 03 2009 07:07 AM

In reply to this comment (#2520813)
Thing about Superman is the story actually requires that it be strongly character driven to be compelling. (Personally, I think the supposed distinction between 'character driven' and 'plot driven'confuses, by definition, what a story is and does)

Superman is this near invulnerable guy. When your hero is virtually indistructable, it becomes integral to make the conflict emotional in order to maintain a connection with the audience. If we can't fear for him, we'd better feel for him. Failing both, no one will give a sh.it what happens to him.

So I appreciate Singer's work on Superman Returns. It is, no question, a flawed film. But it remains aesthetically superior to both Transformers films, Spider-Man 3, and a host of other trashy regurgitations we've been offered in recent years. If Routh's out, then consider me out too.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 03 2009 07:11 AM

In reply to this comment (#2520838)
No truer words have ever been said. What's funny about WB is they make getting Lex right look easy on that hokey tv show while they seem to represent a blanket refusal to even attempt a sound interpretation of him in their movies. Strange...

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 03 2009 08:05 AM

In WB's defense there have only been two portrayals of Luthor in the last 30 years. Hackman and Spacey, and Spacey's was meant to be an homage to the earlier Hackman work. It's not like the character's Dracula who's really had multiple incarnations explored. I do agree though a move to the Machiavellien would be better for the character.

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 08:40 AM

Glad WB is going for a revision of the Superman story. There was too much wrong with "Superman Returns" to fix. Brandon Routh wasn't one of those things but sometimes the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. "Batman Returns" was a far superior movie. The reason "Batman Begins" didn't do as well at the box-office was because people still remembered the debacle that was "Batman and Robin" and were cautious about seeing another disaster.

"Superman Returns" was pretty far removed from the '80s movie series (which people still look back on fondly), therefore it was being released with positive name-recognition but an ultimately unremarkable plot/villain. While it didn't tank, it certainly didn't justify the effort. While there are "Superman Returns" defenders out there, few people are excited about the picture and can honestly claim it is all it could have been.

One chance is enough for Singer. He should go back and try to salvage the X-Men franchise with a fourth team movie.

(Reply to this)

JUDGE DREDD writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:17 AM

Well, IMO, Brandon Routh was great as Superman, better at Clark Kent though. He looks too much like Chris Reeves to waste him by not doing a sequel. Though what annoys me the most is by bringing the kid into it, a second reboot would be tricky without introducing him. I think the comics especially the ones drawn by Jim Lee, have the most awesome powerful mature Superman to date. In the wrong mindset Superman is a lethal weapon. This should be explored.

No more boring kryptonite lex luthor storyline. Make it fantastic like some of the comics. Put earth in real jeopardy, and lets see some hollywood cash spent on something more than a floating island and a plane crash.

I also think if they did rebootit again, SAM WORTHINGTON could make a great Man of Steel. He looks more like Jim Lee's Superman. Time to get gritty and Super!

(Reply to this)

JUDGE DREDD writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:18 AM

Well, IMO, Brandon Routh was great as Superman, better at Clark Kent though. He looks too much like Chris Reeves to waste him by not doing a sequel. Though what annoys me the most is by bringing the kid into it, a second reboot would be tricky without introducing him. I think the comics especially the ones drawn by Jim Lee, have the most awesome powerful mature Superman to date. In the wrong mindset Superman is a lethal weapon. This should be explored.

No more boring kryptonite lex luthor storyline. Make it fantastic like some of the comics. Put earth in real jeopardy, and lets see some hollywood cash spent on something more than a floating island and a plane crash.

I also think if they did rebootit again, SAM WORTHINGTON could make a great Man of Steel. He looks more like Jim Lee's Superman. Time to get gritty and Super!

(Reply to this)

ShoemakerFromHell writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:23 AM

I still am angry with Singer for leaving X-Men for SR. I would actually like to see a reboot of Superman not because I think the Donner films suck but if you want to make new Superman films, you have to start the story over again. No film has ever been great as a pseudo-sequel 20-30 years down the road. Wouldn't it be cool if they made a 6-10 hour saga of Superman? I mean, could you imagine the epic nature of it?

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:24 AM

In reply to this comment (#2520859)
I thought the plot and villain were fine for what they were, an homage to the earlier series which as you say people looked back on fondly. Could it have been more action packed yes, but that's what sequals are for. This movie did an excellent job of reintroducing the public to a character they hadn't seen on the big screen for 20 years. I don't see how you can say it wasn't worth the effort when it was positively received by critics and made by even the most conservative estimates 120 million dollars in profit. That's a bit of a headscrather for me, couple that with Singers filmography compared to any other comics director and his proven ability to produce an improved sequal and I can't see how WB justifies not giving these guys a chance to make that sequal.

(Reply to this)

ShoemakerFromHell writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:27 AM

I still am angry with Singer for leaving X-Men for SR. I would actually like to see a reboot of Superman not because I think the Donner films suck but if you want to make new Superman films, you have to start the story over again. No film has ever been great as a pseudo-sequel 20-30 years down the road. Wouldn't it be cool if they made a 6-10 hour saga of Superman? I mean, could you imagine the epic nature of it?

(Reply to this)

Glenn W. writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:27 AM

Routh was never the problem, the script was the problem. it really didn't give Superman much to do but lift heavy objects or find ways to display all his powers that everyone knows he has anyway. he doesn't even talk very much. the movie's about Superman and Superman only gets what amounts to a couple pages of dialogue, a good portion of which is just reused lines from the previous movies? are you kidding me?

i think SR's biggest problem was Singer's obsessive need to connect it to the first two Superman movies. if you watch SR again, you'll notice that it shares many story beats with the first film just with better special effects. Kal-El crashes on Earth, finds a job at the Daily Planet, saves Lois from a midair disaster, fights a land-grabbing Lex Luthor, lather, rinse, repeat. and the introduction of the kid felt like Singer trying to pound it into the audience's head, "Remember? Superman and Lois slept together in Superman II? Remember?!?" the script just felt redundant.

there's really no need to remind the audience of a story everyone's grandma knows by heart with a script that just rehashed **** from previous movies. "Last son of Krypton, raised on Earth, becomes Superman, disguises himself as a mild-mannered reporter"...we know already. we don't need it to be set up for us AGAIN. if the movie had just started with Lois and Clark at the Daily Planet, no one would have minded. but instead, they come up with this bullcrap scenario where Superman leaves the planet for five years and has to reintroduce himself to the world again with scenes and scenarios that mirror the first film. if Singer had actually tried to make the film stand on its own rather than relying so heavily on the first two movies, it could have been a lot better.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:31 AM

Superman Returns really didn't cost 270 million. Some of that budget includes the failed attempts to get the franchise off the ground- Tim Burton, Nic Cage, etc. So the actual budget for the film itself was a little over 200 million. I still wish they would let Singer make an awesome sequel which he can do and I liked Bradon Routh as Superman. I didn't think he got to do a whole lot in the role but he suited it fine.

(Reply to this)

ARTaylor writes:
on Jul 03 2009 10:05 AM

I love Superman Returns. It was enjoyable but definitely too similar to Superman '78. Particularly when it came to Luthor who, with Spacey's portrayal, should have been the more modern President/Businessman/behind-the-scenes villain that he is today. I thought Routh and Singer did a great job and want to see what they would do next.

(Reply to this)

DivineCC writes:
on Jul 03 2009 10:56 AM

The budget listed only includes what it took to make the actual film. That doesn't include promotional costs, print costs, etc. So the budget was much more than whats listed. Also, out of the $390 million it made in ticket sales, the studio doesn't get every dime of that. A large chunk goes to the theatres. So its very possible that the studio didn't make a whole lot on SR, even more possible since there hasn't been a sequel yet.

(Reply to this)

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)

The Vile writes:
on Jul 03 2009 05:36 PM

In reply to this comment (#2520866)
JUDGE DREDD,

Sam Worthington is a brilliant idea. He looks the part more than anyone else I can think of & damned if he wasn't likable in T4. Although, It's thought of as career suicide playing Superman, so I doubt he would do it when he's on the verge of stardome.

(Reply to this)

woundedmakers writes:
on Jul 03 2009 06:00 PM

This is great news, maybe now they will cast someone who can play SuperMAN and not SuperBOY! I don't get the Routh love, he looks too young and his "take" on Supes was a poor Reeves impression (although I'm sure thats what he was directed to do.) The biggest problem in SR is that it was a lame homage to the Donner films, when it SHOULD have been a fresh take on Superman the character. It seems that WB has realized this. If WB really wanted a sequel to SR, they would have made it by now. They wouldn't have waited for the STAR of the film's contract to expire! Yea, the movie made lots of money, but something didn't click with fans and general audiences. The people that defend SR must have a hard time moving on from Donner's classic. If they had never seen the original I doubt they could find one redeeming quality about Returns. Baby's Daddy Superman? Lex Luthor Space Crystal Real Estate Scheme? Is Parker Posey supposed to be funny? Wtf IS this?

(Reply to this)

Jon J. writes:
on Jul 03 2009 06:43 PM

Give Bryan Singer another shot at it. X1 was merely average from my point of view, and he followed it up with a stellar X2. Maybe SR was like X1, he was just laying the groundwork and getting his feet wet. I do agree with what has been said numerous times on these posts that Luthor needs to be more sinister and less hokey. The bottom line for me is that Bryan Singer deserves one more shot at it. SR was merely ok, but I'll gladly sit through it again over the likes of Spiderman 3 and Transformers 1 and 2.

(Reply to this)

Jon J. writes:
on Jul 03 2009 06:45 PM

I wouldn't want a Superman movie though that is like Transformers 2 which sacrificed story for wall to wall action that pretty much became indulgent.

(Reply to this)

Glenn W. writes:
on Jul 03 2009 07:11 PM

i agree with the opinion that they should gravitate toward different threats than Lex Luthor and Kryptonite, and using the 90's animated series episodes featuring Darkseid as a template. hae Earth getting invaded by the forces of Apokalips and Darkseid and his Furies kicking the crap outta Superman. and make Lex the underlying puppet master threat he has been since the Superman storyline was revamped in the 80's. have Lex act as an opposing voice to Superman's affect and influence on humanity. does he make humanity weak by giving them a blue-and-red babysitter they can expect to pull their butts out of the fire? or does he inspire humanity to become better through his dedication and determination to put his life on the line time and time again for a world he wasn't born to?

in short, make him VULNERABLE, RELEVANT, and KICKA$$.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 03 2009 08:07 PM

Matanuki as I've always said he wasn't touching the rock straight on he took a ton of the bedrock with it. Several feet of solid stone has to have at least part of the effect of a lead lined box. At least enough to make it plausible that he got it off the ground and hurled it before it almost killed him.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521062)
My problem with that is that there was far too much of it for him to overcome. Sure, the lead box theory has latitude. But placing that against the fact that a pebble's weight in kryptonite is enough to put Supe's on his a$$ in any normal cannon related context makes it stand to reason that a continent's weight in kryptonite will require a hell of a lot more lead box lining for him to achieve such a tremendous feat.

Believe me, the "his will power to overcome" theory is not without latitude. It's wonderful to assume and hope that he could do it. But breaking the rules inherent to the created world is far different from bending them.

(Reply to this)

Magic is Might writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:19 PM

What is funny about this constant attack on Transformers 2 is that the plot makes no sense but everyone forgets about the GIANT plot holes in Superman Returns, the kryptonite island is much much much bigger issue than anything in Transformers 2.

(Reply to this)

Paints Hz Shirt Red writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:26 PM

i think singer would make a great sequel. he did with the xmen films. SR was not bad at all. i think singer and routh both deserve another shot.

(Reply to this)

Paints Hz Shirt Red writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:28 PM

In reply to this comment (#2520922)
nothing going for him!? havent you seen valkerie yet?

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 03 2009 10:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521070)
Transformers 2 was and is a piece of sh.it. Get over it.

(Reply to this)

ZigBallistic writes:
on Jul 03 2009 10:35 PM

I agree with the people saying bring in a supervillian that can go toe to toe. Darkseid and Mongul tops that list, get some badass who can destroy the city with a snap of his fingers. The best part about the Donner movies was the fight in Metropolis between supes and Zod and company. Get rid of Luthor ffs, I am tired of seeing him in every damn movie.

Seriously, get a badass mofo who can go toe to toe with supes and you can make it gritty or not, I WILL pay to watch it. A good story would be nice also. :)

(Reply to this)

Ramsey R. writes:
on Jul 03 2009 11:44 PM

I loved Superman Returns the one thing that was missing was a real villain... if you watch the movie close Superman doesn't even get to throw one punch. The best villain ever would be DOOMSDAY... and not done with CGI so that it looks like supes is fighting a cartoon charter. I think getting ride of Brandon Routh would be a huge mistake!!! Not only does he look the part but his acting was great! This is one of my favorite movies and I hope they don't replace him.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 03 2009 11:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521069)
I don't know I always thought of kryptonite sickness as being caused by the radiation from it, so technically being larger wouldn't increase the amount of radiation and would just spread the same amount of radiation over a larger area. The big mistake in thee movie was having the K punch thru the bedrock after he was airborne, but I guess you could say it was at considerable enough distance that the effect was limited. Either way it was a cool visual, although I liked the catching the Dailey Planet globe better.

(Reply to this)

Darnell H. writes:
on Jul 04 2009 06:20 AM

In reply to this comment (#2520838)
I think Spacey did a pretty good job as Lex Luthor (better than Gene Hackman) BUT I think Smallville's Michael Rosenbaum closer catches the essence of Lex Luthor than the both of them. Nevertheless, Superman is such a gigantic name in comics that a mediocre script would not suffice. Superman Returns didn't have that intriguing script, BUT was still worthy of a second chance...Heck, Superman 2 far surpassed the original Superman film.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 04 2009 07:00 AM

In reply to this comment (#2521091)
Here's my problem with that. If it were a form of radiation, it would probably have some kind of effect on us as well. Wouldn't put us on our knees like it does Superman, but I imagine it would have some sort of long term side effects to prolonged exposure. To date, if my information is right, that idea hasn't been introduced into the mythology. (again, I could be wrong) What we have seen is Superman's pain experience being correlative to the amount of kryptonite in his presence. He may be able to crawl away from a rock of kryptonite. But lying in the open doorway of a room full of it, he'd be lucky if he got twelve inches trying to get out.

(Reply to this)

Magic is Might writes:
on Jul 04 2009 08:14 AM

Matanuki in your OPINION Transformers 2 is ****, but from the looks of it not many people agree with you. Get over it.

Keep debating about how the plot of the movie was so bad and then talk about how Transformers 2 sucked. Good thing Matanuki you are not consitant. I am going to pull one of your quotes, "Anybody who liked this movie must be 12 years old."

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 04 2009 09:27 AM

In reply to this comment (#2521116)
Meh, I'll yield to your superior knowledge on this one. Superman is probably on the outside of my top ten list of Super Heroes so I don't know as much about him as you obviously do. If I had to go with a current list...because I know you're wondering:

1. Green Lantern
2. Daredevil
3. Batman
4. Captain America
5. Wolverine
6. The Flash
7. The Joker
8. X-Men
9. Spiderman
10. Superman (I guess he did make the top ten)
6.

(Reply to this)

FURY.UK writes:
on Jul 04 2009 12:16 PM

Doomsday would be good - The animated film with him in was pretty good.

Superman is a difficult superhero to fight against. I'm sick to death of kryptonite being in every film, but how else do you defeat him? He has far fewer weaknesses than any other hero. I think thats always been the difficulty in writing decent scripts.

I enjoyed the old Superman 1 and 2 films, but 3 and 4 gradually got weaker.

Superman Returns was a glossy return for the hero but it was boring. I didn't find Lex Luther very convincing as a superbaddy. The whole krypton island thing was weak. I didn't think Routh was bad as Superman, I just think the material was poor.

(Reply to this)

ZigBallistic writes:
on Jul 04 2009 03:10 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521116)
Lex Luthor got cancer once from prolonged exposure to kryptonite I believe.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 04 2009 03:17 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521169)
I think DC Comics figured out that very same thing in the 80's and addressed it by putting more emphasis on villains who could go toe to toe with Supe's. Now there are probably a dozen villains capable of doing it which is fun too because then you get to see how other hero's i.e. Batman, Green Arrow, and Nightwing deal with these galactic type threats too. Examples of this movement include: Darkseid, Mongol, Cyborg Superman, Metallo, Doomsday, Zod, Superboy Prime and Black Adam just to name a few along with your more wily intellectual villains like Luthor. So with these guys the way you beat Superman is just by kicking the crap out of him like you would anyone else.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 04 2009 04:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521132)
Hey, I'm no esquire. And look, Zig offers the story of Lex to rebut so clearly neither of us are top dog on Superman knowledge. But then, your words, you "yield to my superior knowledge" so it stands to reason that I have to finally go ahead and use the line I've been saving. Imagine a sinister voice, "I did this to you." lol ;-)

Oh and by the way, ahh "Magic", thrilled you've made an appearance, but try to keep up. Me saying that the story for Superman Returns was far superior to that of Transformers 2 and then going on to nitpick the flaws of said superior story is, in a way, a further diss on the stinker.

I understand that we're moving too fast for you, but please, exercise some tact and play it cool in the corner.

(Reply to this)

Magic is Might writes:
on Jul 04 2009 05:24 PM

Lets see if i can say this slowly enough for you to understand Matanuki. In your OPINION Transformers 2 was a stinker, it is not a fact. Everything you said that was wrong about T2 can be said about Superman Returns but because you are fanboy you are too slow to understand that. Name one plot hole in Transformers 2 that is as BIG as the kryptonite island plot hole? So i will once again reuse your statement, "Only a 12 year old like Matanuki would like Superman Returns."

P.S. The world is laughing at you Matanuki, Transformers continues to bring in the money and please audiences all over the world. You are in the very small minority, live with it.

(Reply to this)

Boxman writes:
on Jul 04 2009 10:05 PM

The Dark Knight was definitly better than Batman Begins but, i still thought batman begins was good. Superman i always thought was boring because he had fewer weaknesses than batman so i think batman is better cause he struggles more. I also think Batman Begins is even better than Superman returns. I seen parts of superman returns and i just couldn't watch all of it cause it so boring but that's because the character Superman to me is just boring because he has super strengh.

(Reply to this)

Dark Knight jr. writes:
on Jul 05 2009 12:48 AM

Dammit! That sucks.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 05 2009 04:08 AM

In reply to this comment (#2521227)
You know what you just did, right? You realize of course, Cap, that you just stepped in a trap that just further proves your identity. I wasn't really one of the dudes ragging on you about that, was more or less content to give you a fresh start. But here you pissing on the one of the only people still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. (sigh) Whatever.

Anyway, I'm not sure what your stake in Transformers in. You seem to get pretty upset that some people didn't like it. I'll tell you what I told you before under your other name, try the valerian root, my friend. It'll help.

But you're curious and you asked (in a very b1tchy way, but you asked nonetheless). So let me offer this. First, I'm not a Superman "fanboy". If anything, fool, I'm a Transformers fanboy. So the bias you imagine is nothing more than a mental projection from your own mind. Superman Returns, while woefully flawed, still represents to this day a labor of love on the mythology. A lot of us here have a great deal of negative sh.it to say about Superman Returns -and it gets worse when the whole Batman/Superman debate sparks up- but very few, if any, have argued that there was anything in the film that evidenced Singer's contempt for the mythology. Everyone can comfortably agree that, in this case, the director loved his subject and took the material seriously. Michael Bay? What's the first thing he said about Transformers before he took the job, "I'm not doing that stupid toy movie." And still, two movies in, that contemptuous attitude has infultrated the subtext of the telling. That, I submit, is the difference.

Sidebar: Look, before you even bother. Let's consider what we've learned. You should know by now if you didn't learn it a long time ago, Matanuki IS NOT impressed by your attempts to insult him. Sometimes what you say, I admit, is cute. But never quite compelling. Your portrayal of self is much better when you stay on topic and resist the urge to act like a clown.

(Reply to this)

stupydcow writes:
on Jul 05 2009 08:13 AM

Superman Returns was a horrible movie. All it had was the look, it looked great...but everything else was terrible. First off, it wasn't a sequel...it was a horrible remake of the original. Same ideas all around just with a twist but horribly put together.

You had Superman save Lois again from a flying vehicle. Then they fly together and realize how much they love each other. Then Lex wants to create new land for realestate. In the process destroying everything and Superman has to fly like crazy to stop the catastrophes from happening just like the original. Christ he even flew underground to lift the ground in both movies. It was much more poorly put together, the actors where all wooden and boring.

Here is my problem with the plot. Why does Lex want to create a wasteland that will destroy the rest of the world and kills billions of people? Who is going to buy his land and with what currency when currency is destroyed by his new continent? Then the kid...did anyone watch the original sequel, Superman was human when he slept with Lois. That stupid kid couldn't have powers. It just seems to me they tried way to hard on this movie to make it bigger, better than the original without really being smart and original.

At least in the original, Lex had an idea that would work with the loss of just a few million people.

This movie was horrible and Bryan Singer should be beaten for ripping off the original and butchering it in the process.

Re launch, no sequel to this movie...and BB was a whole lot better than SR.

(Reply to this)

ShoemakerFromHell writes:
on Jul 05 2009 09:56 AM

I agree with you stupydcow. I was disappointed that Superman just let that one dude think Superman's kid was his. I also kind of had a problem with the idea that Superman had a bastard child. I don't know if that is in the comics but nevertheless, I found it disappointing for a messianic character like Superman.

(Reply to this)

cuni34 writes:
on Jul 05 2009 10:01 AM

In my opinion the problem with Superman Returns was when B. Singer trying too much to make his film like the first (Donner)Superman.

Dont get me wrong the first Superman was a good movie but it was 30 years ago... Smallville has 9 seasons playing successfully with the superman mythology so I consider maybe the studio executives are not checking enough the public interest in offering a new approach Superman in the big screen

When they have a fresh and new Superman franchise
I am going to be at the theather.

(Reply to this)

cuni34 writes:
on Jul 05 2009 10:04 AM

In my opinion the problem with Superman Returns was when B. Singer was trying too much to make his film like the first (Donner)Superman.

Dont get me wrong the first Superman was a good movie but it was 30 years ago... Smallville has 9 seasons playing successfully with the superman mythology so I consider maybe the studio executives are not checking enough the public interest in offering a new approach to Superman in the big screen

When they have a fresh and new Superman franchise
I am going to be at the theather.

(Reply to this)

matt d. writes:
on Jul 05 2009 10:14 AM

i really liked superman returns got the same kind of good reviews batman begins did if you go by this site, but general audiences thought it was boring... go figure... the movie was beautiful if you ask me.. supes flying up to sun with brandos voiceover; powerful stuff... my only complaint was introducing his son into the story....

WB shoudl bring both of them back... singer is one of the most talented filmmakers out there... remember what he did with xmen 2? get a villian supes can fight and have singer bring the same kind of artistry to the picture and everyone will love it...

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 05 2009 11:23 AM

In reply to this comment (#2521345)
OK, you have a right to not like the movie, but at least don't like it for legitimate reasons. So much of what you said is just wrong...

Yes, it had a lot of the same beats as the original because it's meant as a tribute to the original. Not liking that it's a tribute is fine, but the way you said it made it seem like Singer didn't know what he was doing in replicating the other movie. That was his intention and to be fair the originality came in because it wasn't exactly the same. The airplane in space was much more spectacular a save and he saved a ton more people instead of just Lois. Lex didn't want to create new land in the original he wanted to knock part of California into the ocean to make the land he already owned more valuable and most glaringly I don't think Superman flew underground in the original and lifted anything up. He knocked the missiles out of the air then he flew around the Earth at high speed to turn back time and save Lois.

As for your issues with the plot, he doesn't want to sell the land which is not a wasteland by the way. If you paid attention as Lex explains Kryptonian technology is crystal based like the fortress of solitude though so it just looks like a bunch of crystals they're actually more useful than that though they don't go into detail on how. Lex was planning on being ruler of the world, not making money on a real estate scam. After society collapsed people were going to have to come to him as the only guy with land and superior crystal based tech. to rebuild the world.

Lastly, yes Superman was depowered when he slept with Lois, but since Kryptonians are fictional we don't know exactly how that works so it's possible the kid could still be super-powered IF in fact he is super powered. It never conclusively reveals that it only implies it with the piano flying in from off screen. You should probably watch it again because for a movie you claimed isn't smart you sure didn't understand a lot of it.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 05 2009 11:30 AM

In reply to this comment (#2521356)
I don't think Marsden's character thought the kid was his. I think he was just taking care of the kid because he was seeing Lois. Unless Lois was a big ol' ho and started shacking up with the guy right after Superman left it'd be pretty obvious the kid wasn't his. Though these people are fooled by a pair of glasses, so anythings possible. The Bastard Child didn't bother me so much. People are always whining about Superman being too God-like. That move humanized him for me and was like saying even a person with all that power can make mistakes and is basically human at heart.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 05 2009 12:44 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521371)
We're definitely in agreement on the humanization part. We were allowed to see Superman as a flawed individual, not merely some inaccessable godhead. I especially like how, in one of the more awkward scenes, they showed him listening in on that conversation where Lois says she doesn't love him. It was as far as they've come in pushing the envelope, and look how people reacted. Suddenly he's a stalker, a deadbeat father, an all around a$$hole.

This is where Singer should take his cues, if he is allowed to do a sequel. He should explore how inflammatory and tenuous the relationship between Superman and his accolites are. Everyone expects him to save the day, but when he shows signs of life he's magically transformed into a renegade pariah.

A character like Brainiac would definitely exploit that. And if written well, it would serve as an allegory for how so many limitations have been imposed on the franchise for people projecting their religious assumptions on the mythology.

(Reply to this)

JRW1980 writes:
on Jul 05 2009 01:05 PM

I've said this before in a way older post about Superman.......I think a great sequel would be to make it that Superman Returns never really happened. He never ended up returning from space but was instead captured by Brainiac at some point. The whole Superman Returns movie has all been an illusion created in Superman's head by Brainiac as a way to hold him prisoner. He's been held captive by Brainiac for years or something. They could set up any number of things that happened in his time.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 05 2009 01:19 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521382)
But then you alienate the fans of Superman Returns and I've never been a fan of the "Bobby in the shower" trick. Maybe it's a can't win situation and Singer and Routh are lucky to be getting out.

(Reply to this)

jacog writes:
on Jul 05 2009 01:51 PM

Yeah, SR was not the best of movies. It served mainly as a nostalgia piece, and as that it worked well. I guess it was aimed at those of us that saw the original Superman (and perhaps II) in the theaters.

Even with flaws, I vote for sequel over remake. Look at how well Singer did between X1 and X2. X1 was ok, X2 was great. In this case, SR was ok, but not great.

As for the kid. I say work him into the plot, make him become a villain or perhaps kill him off as a plot device.

(Reply to this)

stupydcow writes:
on Jul 05 2009 03:48 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521370)
The movie was still terrible, and yes it was still a rip off of the original. Same formula, same idea, lame lame lame. You say the airplane was spectacular...more like overdone. I felt the helicopter scene had much more impact than the airplane scene. As I watched this movie, through the whole thing I felt these are places I've been before...except this time around it was cold, boring, and dark.

Don't give me the whole fictional character BS...it was stupid, plain and simple. Superman became a stalker in this movie also...stupid. His son was a sick little boy that ends up throwing a piano...stupid. Regardless if it was for real estate or ruler of a wasteland, it would still kill everything....stupid. Superman in a Hospital...STUPID!

Why did Superman go to find Krypton, we all know it blew up and in the original they found Kryptonite...pieces of his home world. Remember this is "SUPPOSE" to be a direct sequel of the Richard Donner movies. Everything about this movie was pointless and STUPID! I love movies and am a huge Superman fan but I guess this was just extremely disappointing to me.

Now don't get me wrong, it had it's moments of "Hey this sorta works..." then it doesn't and it looked great. Good special effects, good sets but in the end Bad movie.

(Reply to this)

stupydcow writes:
on Jul 05 2009 03:49 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521370)
The movie was still terrible, and yes it was still a rip off of the original. Same formula, same idea, lame lame lame. You say the airplane was spectacular...more like overdone. I felt the helicopter scene had much more impact than the airplane scene. As I watched this movie, through the whole thing I felt these are places I've been before...except this time around it was cold, boring, and dark.

Don't give me the whole fictional character BS...it was stupid, plain and simple. Superman became a stalker in this movie also...stupid. His son was a sick little boy that ends up throwing a piano...stupid. Regardless if it was for real estate or ruler of a wasteland, it would still kill everything....stupid. Superman in a Hospital...STUPID!

Why did Superman go to find Krypton, we all know it blew up and in the original they found Kryptonite...pieces of his home world. Remember this is "SUPPOSE" to be a direct sequel of the Richard Donner movies. Everything about this movie was pointless and STUPID! I love movies and am a huge Superman fan but I guess this was just extremely disappointing to me.

Now don't get me wrong, it had it's moments of "Hey this sorta works..." then it doesn't and it looked great. Good special effects, good sets but in the end Bad movie.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 05 2009 04:17 PM

When you're doing an homage can you really be accused of ripping off the original? Well, obviously you can since you just did, but isn't that part and parcel to doing an homage? Fair enough on the plane sequence for me that, the spaceborne eavesdropping looking for crime and the Daily Planet globe catch were the most memorable moments.

How is being a fictional character a BS argument? I could see it if the issue of pregnancy had ever been addressed before in Superman, but to the best of my knowledge it hasn't. That fact made that awesome diatribe in Mallrats possible..."If Lois gets a suntan the baby could kick right thru her stomach". Superman is a stalker, now that's a BS argument. Are you actually telling me if you had the ability to hear thru walls, and fly you wouldn't be tempted to listen in on an ex or two? The unbelievable part is that he doesn't do it more often or spend all his time sitting outside of Megan Fox's house praying that she never starts to wear lead lined undies. The kryptonite island wouldn't actually kill everything since in his diagram there were' clearly large portions of the earth still above water and I've already addressed the wasteland bit. Lex actually explains that to Posey after they find the fortress. As for Superman in a hospital, where else were they going to take him?

You're right, we all knew Krypton was destroyed, but let me ask you this. If a thousand people told you your house got wiped out by a tornado, even brought you the nameplate off the side of the house, wouldn't you still go to see for yourself? or want to see if anyone besides you survived?. I get the extemely disappointed part. I've had a lot of movies I looked forward to ruined by my high expectations. So I get it, but I think those high expectations may be leading you to judge the movie too harshly. I was just glad to get a character driven movie that could do live action justice to who Superman is as a character better than Donner movies that were limited by the special effects of the time.

(Reply to this)

stupydcow writes:
on Jul 05 2009 05:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521411)
Lol...dude the movie still sucked. It really wasn't that good. I didn't really see a Character driven movie either...the whole thing was bland. Lex was the same as Superman in that movie, except one was good one was even. The Characters seemed so Black and White to me.

I don't get the homage crap either. You can give homage in a completely new movie with a completely new direction, but the whole movie itself was homage...that is lame.

The problem with the stalker issue is this. At the end of Superman 2 he erases Lois's memory of her knowledge of his true identity. Why in the sequel to that he all of sudden thinks they can still be together or hes mad that this happened. I felt that in part 2 when he erased her memory he was sorta letting her go. Also if Lois's memory was erased wouldn't she be wondering who the hell the kids father is, but she knows it was Supermans...how? So she remembers bits and pieces of what happened between her and Superman?

Why does this Superman who can hear everyones thoughts in Space need to be at her house to know what she is doing...it was creepy. I just felt that one of the main plot points in this movie doesn't add up with the previous films. Why should Superman be surprised when he himself erased her memory, sorta letting her go...then he leaves and he comes back surprised shes moved on? It is lame!

There are plot holes and creepiness in this movie. Honestly, I could just forget it ever happened and I feel the world would be a better place. I know it's just a movie but something really didn't sit well with me when watching this...I had high hopes as Superman was one of my favorite hero's as a kid. In the end just as a movie it sucked. It really wasn't funny at all either...AT ALL!!! Everyone seemed to have a bug up their @ss.

(Reply to this)

stupydcow writes:
on Jul 05 2009 05:00 PM

...one was evil.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 05 2009 05:48 PM

hmmmm, I didn't think the characters were black and white at all. Oddly, because of some of the things you mentioned as faults. Superman had several issues where he didn't necessarily come across as the clear cut good guy in the way he did in the original movies. You could be right about him letting Lois go, but lets not forget years had passed. Is Superman not allowed to change his mind. I suspect you'd be surprised how five years in space changes you perspective. Plus, there's the matter of the kid. Ask anyone in real life when kids enter the equation things change.

One of the best things in the film I thought was that Superman wasn't necessarily the better man in the love triangle. I thought that was an interesting dynamic and Singer should have been applauded for not taking the short cut and giving Marsden some flaw that would have excused Lois leaving him for Superman. I guess one mans creepy is another man's romantic.

I can see where you're coming from and can even sympathize I feel the same way about Terminator: Salvation and Indy 4, but other people disagree and that's cool. That's what makes debate fun. Have a good one. Sadly it's not in either of our hands, we'll have to see what WB decides.

(Reply to this)

rizzyh writes:
on Jul 05 2009 05:59 PM

Personally, i love to discuss comic books, but I'm reeeeeaaaallly tired of the whole portrayal of Superman in the movies thing, because i think everyone can agree that they just don't seem to get it right despite decades of trying. I'd rather talk about the character in other mediums, like, say TV.

I'm totally with Ultimale069, There really is no better portrayal of Superman than the 90s Dini/Timm cartoons. Hell, before Nolan came along, i would've guessed that was true for Batman as well, so i will always hold out for a live action Superman portrayal that does justice to the character and that everyone can unanimously love. But so far, things aren't so promising: SMALLVILLE is probably the longest running Superman series ever on TV, and they have gotten progressively worse with every episode. What seemed interesting in the beginning: Superman without the suit and flying, has gotten so monotonous and painstakingly bad that watching an episode is like subjecting yourself to torture. Forget Superman Returns, Quest for Peace is better than whole seasons of that crappy show.

For all you guys that think they can't possibly go wrong with DOOMSDAY, just watch last season's finale: they built up Doomsday the whole frea.kin' season, only to have him fight Clark for about 15 seconds and then disappear with literally no rhyme or reason. I mean, jeez, Batman had his embarrassingly cheesy TV phase in the 70s, but that was on purpose!!!

It really isn't about the writers of movies, i'm sure they tried really hard. It's just that Superman's Nolan hasn't been born yet. Until then, we will have so-so movies and even cheesier TV shows to live with. I'm just thankful for awesome comic writers and those amazing Superman & Justice League cartoons that make us all believe that there is an amazing story just waiting to be told.

(Reply to this)

stupydcow writes:
on Jul 05 2009 07:22 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521430)
lol, we agree to disagree. I agree with Indy 4 also. I thought Terminator Salvation was okay at best...I was a bit disappointed at it but what can you do.

We'll just have to see what they do for future installments and yes I think the debate is fun. Take it easy.

(Reply to this)

moviebuff#1 writes:
on Jul 05 2009 07:30 PM

Superman Returns was a decent movie, but it was also extremy flawed. They should focus less on what will make money and make an actual brilliant Superman movie. Like Spider-Man 2 and The Dark Knight, create a dark universe with deep characters and also leave room for some humor and action sequences...

My opinion?

Throw out the playbook, start from scrath. Get a new actor to play Superman and tell an origin story, and then plan around a sequel where you can play off a predescesor. Bring back characters from the first movie (the origin movie) and then create consequences for them. Introduce Luther in one, but limit his role. Then make his role in the sequel bigger.

This is my plan for how to fix Superman.

I am currently writing a The Last Son of Krypton script.

(Reply to this)

Paints Hz Shirt Red writes:
on Jul 05 2009 09:01 PM

In reply to this comment (#2520957)
wrong.

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on Jul 05 2009 09:59 PM

Way too tired to engage in a point-by-point dissection of SUPERMAN RETURNS' strenghts and weaknesses, but I will say this about box office and budget: the numbers you see are GROSS figures, not NET figures. Yes the movie took in $200M domestic, BUT the theaters get about half and the studio comes out with the other half. The international take is even dicier when you factor in foreign market distributing, dubbing costs, etc. Did the movie make its money back? Probably did when DVD and rental fees are factored in, but it wasn't a $120 million profit just from the international take minus the production budget.

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on Jul 05 2009 10:24 PM

Oh, and Matanuki:

I was willing to give Cap another shot if he was man enough to apologize for his past behavior and say that he wanted another chance. But if a guy doesn't ask for a second chance, I'm not gonna bother giving him one. I think it's fairly obvious that the new incarnation is not very different from the old.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 06 2009 02:48 AM

In reply to this comment (#2521490)
Agreed.

(Reply to this)

rle4lunch writes:
on Jul 06 2009 02:05 PM

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Transformers and Superman (or Batman, or any other superhero) cannot really be put in the same ballpark as one another. Comparing the two is just stupid. I will say this though.

SR was alright. Routh is the man for the character, eff getting someone else, just give him a better story. Singers take on it was a good premise, and I loved his coloring of the whole movie, very beautiful to look at. Just kinda boring. Keep Routh though, he brings back the original nostalgic feel that Reeve's created.

Batman Begins, was ALRIGHT. I really didn't think it was spectacular, but it was the best superhero movie to come out in a long time, so it was welcomed with open arms (because nothing else could compare at the time, not because it was so great). TDK was much better than BB, but there were a lot of flaws in that movie as well (HBO has been airing it about 5 times a day, so you really get a chance to pick that sh.it apart with multiple viewings).

I just saw Transformers 2 yesterday for the first time. I thought it was okay. The special effects kicked the living sh.it out of anything out there to date. The movie really didn't have a plot, but it had a better one than the first one. And once Bay started the explosion fest, it didn't let up for 2 hours. With that said, I did enjoy it for the most part, and I don't understand the hate for it as much as it's getting on RT.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 06 2009 06:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521672)
All these films are comparable on the merits of storytelling. And they're all mythologies involving heroes and villains, templates based in archetypes both classic and new. It can be argued either way. But calling the comparison "stupid" isn't really saying anything.

(Reply to this)

tabascoman77 writes:
on Jul 06 2009 06:21 PM

If Andrew Kruzel were here, I would agree with him on Transformers 2. I actually liked it.

Come on, Andrew! Agree with me!

(Reply to this)

rle4lunch writes:
on Jul 06 2009 08:21 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521751)
Hey Mata, long time..

true I guess, but for someone like me, that didn't dive into any of the comics growing up, this discussion is quite topical, so 'stupid' was the first word that came to mind. i wasn't bashing on anyone though...

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 07 2009 12:01 PM

I'm a little late to the conversation, but I keep hearing people talk about a kryptonite continent. The island/ continent was not completely made of kryptonite, the island was made of crystal and Lex Luthor fused the crystal with kryptonite to make it toxic to Superman. When Superman removes the island, he's not taking a complete island made of kryptonite, he's taking an island with bits of krytonite mixed in. When you think of it in that context it makes more sense.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 07 2009 12:20 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521227)
MagicisMight: How is this for a Transformers 2 plothole: In the first Transformers film the robots have a massive fight in the streets of Los Angeles (one of the biggest cities in America) with thousands of people there to witness it. Now at the beginning of Transformers 2 they are completely underground, the attack in LA completely forgotten and the Transformers (giant f-ing robots that destroyed a massive city) are just a rumor. That's a massive gaping hole dude!

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 07 2009 01:43 PM

In reply to this comment (#2521433)
rizzyh: Actually, there was a rhyme and reason to what happened with Doomsday when you think about it. The place that Doomsday ended up is the place that he will eventually break from in the comics which depict the future from where we are at now in Smallville. And while I wouldn't argue that the show will ever reach the greatness it had in season 2, 3, 5, and 6 I don't think it's gotten horrible. The seasons aren't great now, but episodes show glimmers of the greatness they used to have. Personally, I think they should have stopped when Rosenbaum left.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 07 2009 02:20 PM

Now for my feelings on the matter:

I, personally, would prefer that they give Singer a go at the sequel. It seemed like he was planning to go in a much different direction, more of the angry god direction which could be very interesting. I think people are too quick to dismiss him for making a good, but not great Superman movie. (A lot of people are complaining that the movie was boring, but that doesn't make the movie bad on a technical level, and I'm happy that Singer didn't feel the need to overladen the movie with effects and explosions just because he could like some people do. Sorry, I couldn't help myself there.)

At the same time, I would also like a reboot. Superman has changed in the comic medium since the last series came out from comics that inspired the Donner and Lester movies. I think Luthor still has his place in the mythology, but not in his current movie incarnation. In all reality Luthor should be a brilliant scientist who's research has won the world's affections and he's someone that everyone listens to. He could be used as a pawn of a higher power to sway public opinion against Superman.

I would probably use the first half of Superman: Birthrite to stage a reboot. You start off with Clark Kent the globetrotting free lance reporter trying to find himself, but then decides to come back to Smallville. From there he decides that he wants to try and get a job at the Daily Planet so he can help with crime and keep an eye on if people are coming close to finding out who he is. We see his parents and him come up with the human "costume" to mask who he is.

This can make up the first half of the movie and from the time he gets to Metropolis and starts his work as Superman we can see Brainiac meeting with a Lex Luthor who has massive influence and pull in the community who will start calling for Superman to account for himself as an alien who has come to earth as the beginning of a full scale invasion. You could even bring in another character like Zod who could be hailed as the answer to Superman, a former Kryptonian general who didn't believe in his world's plans to invade a world like Earth of lesser people. This naturally conflicts in Clark Kent's mind because he doesn't know much of the world he comes from.

I think this would make a great set up for a first movie of a new series, and the three villains are not all meant to be fought by Superman and at least 2 of them can be reused for that reason. You have the mouth of the villains (Lex Luthor), the brain (Brainiac), and the brawn (Zod). That's what I think they should do if they reboot it.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Superman Returns

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links