What did Bryan Singer got it wrong for Superman Returns where Nolan got it right for Batman?

[godisawesome]

First, just an observation: SR was one of several "soft reboots" from the 00s, films that tried to kinda-sorta accept some of the previous parts of their franchises in a really vague way. There was this film, TMNT, and Incredible Hulk. All three of those films were ultimately profitable, but only Incredible Hulk got anything like a sequel in Avengers, and that was more because the rest for the Marvel brand was well above par. Perhaps the biggest issue was that audiences wanted something fresh in all three occasions? Star Trek and X-Men both made reboots that deliberately incorporated the old films, but used time-travel to tie the old to the new. Maybe just vaguely tying into older franchises was a bad idea at the time.

Second, I think the status quo's left at the end of both movies had something to do with their chance of seeing sequels: in SR, Superman's son is the only real status quo change, and it's a fairly controversial one in almost every way, whereas BB ends with a corrupt city turned topsy turvy in the wake of both a vigilante's premier and a terrorist attack which definitely left a mark, and that's all before the Joker card shows up. BB let you feeling like the iron was hot; they'd continued expanding the rogues gallery, but promised to use escalation to reintroduce a major villai, and featured a young Batman and Gordon getting ready to clean up the city. SR was...a good movie where Superman saves the day again, Lex lives to scheme again, Lois and her husband are still together, and everything is as it should be. Ultimately, Nolan left a franchise still rife with conflict for his next movie, while Singer put a bow on top of his.

Thirdly....and this is all just my personal view on SR's problems to me as a fan and audience member, SR proved the problems of the Donner Superman. You can argue pretty effectively that S:TM is a classic, but I really don't think the formula is. Superman "alieness" is a sore source of contention for modern fans like us all the time; Donner Superman, as presented by SR, showcases that problem with his sometimes aloof demeanor in costume, or how Clark Kent seems more like a charlatan's act than an actual piece of the personality (and it's not exploited for character moments like BB's Playboy Bruce is; Bruce is clearly uncomfortable with some of the practices of the charade, and only uses it at the pointed assessment of Alfred that he needs to). You also get some uncomfortable Übermench vibes with his prioritization of seeing if Krypton still exists regardless of whatever is going on with regular humans, or with how Richard White seems to be a perfectly fine father for his son, thank you very much, or with trying to directly translate Donner Superman's round the world heroics to a modern context, when suddenly it starts to feel a bit more "Big Brother is watching" than you'd like. And the cast is still trapped in limited roles: Lex is still an evil real estate tycoon with questionable choice in entourage, Jimmy is still a sad sack loser, Lois still can't spell and makes horrible decisions in her investigating, and Perry is still Da Chief and only Da Chief.

Having said that, I think SR is still an excellent film in terms of execution; I actually enjoy all the acting and direction. It's just that the core is off kilter and more disappointing than bad.

[TomServofan]

It's a retcon, not a reboot.

[Powerboy]

I mean Superman Returns sounded promising at first but unfortunately Singer relied too much on fanboy love of the first 2 movies rather than being it's own movie with it's own identity as it was a sequel to a 28 year old franchise that died in 1987. Now Nolan knew what he was doing with the Batman series, he decided to discard the 1989 to 1997 movies out the window when he rebooted Batman on the big screen for the modern 21st century audience and made something fresh with his series.

Singer has regretted not rebooting Superman for today's audience.

Only because it failed to resonate with a large enough audience, not because he didn't believe in what he was doing or its quality.

He made a statement at the time that the Batman movies were desperately in need of a reboot but that the Superman movies just needed a continuation because they (the first two) did it right to begin with.

However, the points where SR failed were not the parts that continued and went with the style of the Reeve movies. I readily admit that the 1970's/ 1980's style won't work today entirely. But the parts that seemed stylistically like the Reeve movies seemed to get a fairly positive audience response. The flak mostly seems to come from some of the parts that deviated from being true to what the Reeve character was such as stalker Superman for example.

It always amazes me when people use SR as an argument that a Reeve style, even updated, can't work anymore because, hey, they tried that with SR and it flopped. Yes, but it seemed to flop largely when it deviated and felt nothing like the Reeve movies.

[Powerboy]

Seriously, I don't think Singer did anything wrong. I've read that when he did the first X-Men, he showed clips of SUPERMAN THE MOVIE to the cast and crew to show them how it's done. I'm not a big fan of the X-Men movies, but I thought SUPERMAN RETURNS was perfectly okay. The only thing I would have changed was the tempo of the movie. To me it was a lot like STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE--a bit too reverential and slow moving. But because I like that stuff, I didn't mind it--but I know North American audiences are used to a faster pace with lots of quick cuts.

No one could have predicted that SR would underperform (I'm not going to say fail, because it did better at the box office than BATMAN BEGINS*). I'm still not sure why it didn't do a little better. Even if the story weren't any good--according to some--bad movies do very well at the box office all the time. I don't accept the notion that the Christopher Reeeve Superman was out of date and nobody was interested in that Superman. I know that's what some people say with 20-20 hindsight, as a way to explain why the movie did poorly. But it doesn't square with what we see with other movies that take the same approach and do well.

I think what Singer wanted to do was pretty much the same thing that Nolan wanted to do. In the case of SR, that movie uses the Donnerverse as a way to restart the series and tries to evoke feelings for Superman by reminding us of who he is in Donner terms (and ignoring the last two Reeve movies). Which sets up Superman for the next movie. Singer has prepared his platform and then hopes to build on that with the next movie.

In BB, Nolan has to erase the memory of BATMAN AND ROBIN (as well as BATMAN FOREVER)--which would be much more recent in the minds of the audience--so he has to go back and restage Batman's origin (which was never developed much in the original Burton movie). The movie follows the same pattern as SUPERMAN THE MOVIE and most every other super-hero movie since. First part origin, second part debut, third part big finish with all the action. Jam-packed with villains, it's like the bloated Batman movies that preceded it. And many people watching the movie accepted it as simply a prequel to those other movies.

BB sets a good platform for the next movie--but aside from people like myself, not many movie-goers thought BATMAN BEGINS was the best Batman movie (if you go by box office). When I was in the movie theatre, at the very end when Gordon shows Batman the Joker--the guy behind me said, "Now that's gonna be good." So all of BB just set the stage for the next movie, which proved to the big break through movie.

*BATMAN BEGINS (2005) Worldwide: $374,218,673
SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006) Worldwide: $391,081,192

I also thought SR was a very good and innovative movie. I respected his willingness to show Superman with some human weaknesses like not being able to let go of a past love.

I think for some in the audience- sometimes I watch the rest of the audience and listen as I watch a movie- the mixture of the Reeve movies and the more modern style was a sour mixture. Superman acting like this just didn't fit in with what he was in the Reeve movies and I noted a somewhat amused but sort of negative reaction to Luthor going from mostly comedy to full blown lose your temper sadist. Part of the problem was actually the expectation that this would feel like the Reeve movies and it largely didn't.

It's just one of those things where one person says it was basically like the Reeve movies and another says it doesn't and both ask the other if they were watching the same movie. Yes it was a sequel but little if it felt like the Reeve movies so the jury is still out as to whether something like the Reeve movies but updated could work.

It may not be a fair comparison but I can't help but notice that sensation that is being generated over the fact that we may get a Star Wars that is updated and modern but still feels strongly like the 1970s/ 80s trilogy.

[Powerboy]

The Superman in Returns has way too much baggage & all of it was accumulated in other films. Every film has a romantic side plot. Returns had Lois married & with a child. No romance there. A good soap opera plot but not what you want in a movie.

Oddly, I never felt like the movie connected to the Donner films. I LOVE Superman! I LOVE the old films! I'm pretty easy to please. When I saw INCREDIBLE HULK movie had an opening that evoked the the 70's TV show, it immediately had my goodwill & I left the theater fairly happy. RETURNS left me absolutely numb. Even hearing the music felt out of place. Singer didn't even make the most of the advances in technology because the plot so mimicked the old films. Just a weird movie. People complain that MAN OF STEEL was gloomy but RETURNS was pretty dreary to me. Routh was ok but that costume was bad.

Honestly, as soon as I saw the word "baggage", it occurred to me that coming back to the Reeve Superman 20 years later and he and Lois and are married and had a son and were a model family would have resonated better because it would have felt like a true in character sequel rather than trying to *say* it's the Reeve Superman but most of it feels dark and gritty in ways different from the Reeve movies.

Plus there are expectations about how well a Superman movie will do that may no longer be realistic. Someone already pointed out that it beat "Batman Begins" at the box office.

[Powerboy]

Most agree, at least Man of Steel was made for today's audience and is the best Superman movie ever.

Okay I liked MoS. But who are these people compared to the numbers that would list StM or SII as the best ever? In terms of actual ticket sales, StM and II are vastly ahead of MoS. The only way you can rig the ballets to get MoS ahead is to go with pure dollars made and utterly ignore inflation so you've got current audiences spending $8 for a movie compared t the Reeve days when they spent $3.

I would almost believe that remark was just meant to bait people.

[Jim Kelly]

I just have resigned myself to the fact that there are special rules made up for Superman that are not applied to any other comic book character, fictional character, movie or TV show. And these rules are used to show why Superman must be a failure--even though such rules are never or rarely ever applied to anyone or anything else.

The many movies like STAR WARS and other movies of late that are in the same continuity as movies from twenty or thirty years ago or in some other way use that past continuity for the new movie. The many other comic book characters that are god-like. The many other fictional and real heroes who are "boy scouts."

It's always the same old story with Superman. He's constrained by these rules, because they help explain why this or that or the other thing doesn't catch on with an audience or a readership. Except they don't really explain anything, because they're never usually applied to anything else but Superman.

[Powerboy]

I just have resigned myself to the fact that there are special rules made up for Superman that are not applied to any other comic book character, fictional character, movie or TV show. And these rules are used to show why Superman must be a failure--even though such rules are never or rarely ever applied to anyone or anything else.

The many movies like STAR WARS and other movies of late that are in the same continuity as movies from twenty or thirty years ago or in some other way use that past continuity for the new movie. The many other comic book characters that are god-like. The many other fictional and real heroes who are "boy scouts."

It's always the same old story with Superman. He's constrained by these rules, because they help explain why this or that or the other thing doesn't catch on with an audience or a readership. Except they don't really explain anything, because they're never usually applied to anything else but Superman.

I'd pretty much concluded that too. There is a standard for Superman that is unique. Some of it is the standard, "There is no good version of a character but the version I like best and only that is the "true" version" but it's more than that.

Other characters can be altered in huge ways, updated and so on, but do that to Superman and you hate or don't get the character. Or don't change him at all and you failed.

As a couple of people pointed out, Superman Returns did better than Batman Begins. So why were there two sequels to Batman but SR never had sequels? Why wasn't SR considered a success along with BB and even more of a success? Or, the other way, if SR was a failure, why wasn't BB that made less even more of a failure? Internet criticisms? Please. People that hate something are always vocal and it makes their numbers seem greater than they really are. If it has the ticket sales, who cares about criticisms? Ticket sales are the truest critique of what is working.

It is indeed as if there is an unattainable standard for Superman and Superman alone that no other character has to live up to.

[TomServofan]

A Clean slate was needed,

[Powerboy]

A Clean slate was needed,

Which is merely a statement of preference and in no way addresses why SR is allegedly a failure when it did better than a movie that is considered a success.

[Xon-Ur]

Just thought I'd toss this out here to add another element to the discussion: Nolan didn't get as much "right" about The Batman as people claim.

*Bruce has no direction after his parents are murdered. In the comics, he makes a graveside vow to "war on all crime." The Batman is born at that moment.

*Bruce travels the East (not the entire world) and becomes a criminal to learn about criminality. This is missing the point of O'Neil's LOTDK arcs that explained that Bruce was traveling the world to learn EVERYTHING he could that might be helpful in his war on crime. How logical is it to become a criminal to learn about fighting crime? Eventually, you'll spend more of your time in prison than actually learning, as we saw in Begins.

*Bruce returns home to Gotham and never once displays the inventive brilliance and ingenuity of his comic book counterpart. The Bruce of the comics is a researcher after his parents are murdered and becomes a tremendous autodidact out of necessity and drive, learning all he needs to not only fight crime with his body but also, to build the necessary tools (vehicles, weapons, etc) to protect himself and make his war more effective.

*Following from the last point, Bruce has EVERYTHING handed to him by Lucius Fox, because Nolan and Goyer have to make everything "realistic." Lucius: "Hey Bruce, here's the Batmobile, Batsuit, grapnel, utility belt, and even cape."

I could continue with even more details from Begins and go through the next two films, but I won't. Suffice to say that Nolan's take on The Batman turned a character rooted in the mystique and fantasy (as well as, yes, realism) of the 1930s pulp heroes and novels into a cop with lots of money and a guy who supplies him with his gear. Nolan's Batman is essentially James Bond with a cowl; he even has his own Q in the form of Lucius.

No one points this out because the loudest voices of praise for Nolan's take are those who have only read the "celebrated" tales of The Batman, i.e., the ones that other hipsters who are too cool to read actual comic books have recommended. It's one thing to read decades worth of The Batman's regular adventures (as I and many others here have) and call yourself a Batman fan than to read TDKR or The Killing Joke, watch the Nolan movies, and then decree them to be the "ultimate take" on The Batman.

In comparison, Superman Returns is actually far closer to the comics concept of Superman than Nolan's version of The Batman. The most glaring flaws that can't be forgiven in SR are the characterizations of Luthor and Lois and the concept of a Superkid, which only makes the awful relationship in Superman II all the worse. Superman becomes a guy who basically shacked up with Lois briefly, then erased her mind of the whole event because he didn't think she could handle it. Superman Returns builds on that flaw by adding a kid that Lois must surely know isn't Richard's and making Superman a deadbeat dad.

[Jim Kelly]

Between 1987 (when SUPERMAN: THE QUEST FOR PEACE came out) and 2006 (when SUPERMAN RETURNS came out) there were many many efforts to get a Superman movie made. That's one of the excuses used to argue that SR made no money--because money was being spent for nearly twenty years to get a Superman movie made and some of that money is counted as part of the budget for SR.

It almost seems like a cottage industry had sprung up for developing a Superman movie. And when you factor in the period between 2006 and 2013, when Superman had to go through even more development hell--some people were getting rich off of developing movies that would never actually be made. I sometimes wonder if they really wanted to make movies, when they could make money for themselves without having to bother with getting anything done for real.

During all that period, every approach was explored, so it's not like the "clean slate" idea wasn't examined, given several treatments and put in front of executives who could make that happen if they wanted long before 2006.

Of course, at the same time there were several TV shows featuring the character. And each took their own approach to Superman. Any one of those approaches could have been used. Yet the executives in charge of movie development didn't seem to bother considering any of those treatments or using any of the actors or producers involved with those series.

Whatever was going on at Warner between 1987 and 2013 was not as simplistic as some people make it appear to be. I don't believe so, anyway. Someone should write a book about that.

[Jim Kelly]

*Following from the last point, Bruce has EVERYTHING handed to him by Lucius Fox, because Nolan and Goyer have to make everything "realistic." Lucius: "Hey Bruce, here's the Batmobile, Batsuit, grapnel, utility belt, and even cape."

It always bugged me that Lucius Fox was made into this tech guy, instead of being the financial officer for Wayne Enterprises. It also took those Batman movies in a different direction--just like the previous run of movies, with their ornate sets and baroque villains, took Batman in a different direction. Wheareas, what I always wanted was the Detective. Bruce doesn't spend a lot of time doing real detection, solving mysteries. More often other characters are solving mysteries for him in the Nolanverse. I don't think I'll ever get the kind of Batman movie or TV show I wanted--the '66 TV show had Batman solving more mysteries, even if it was just for comic effect.

[Powerboy]

Between 1987 (when SUPERMAN: THE QUEST FOR PEACE came out) and 2006 (when SUPERMAN RETURNS came out) there were many many efforts to get a Superman movie made. That's one of the excuses used to argue that SR made no money--because money was being spent for nearly twenty years to get a Superman movie made and some of that money is counted as part of the budget for SR.

It almost seems like a cottage industry had sprung up for developing a Superman movie. And when you factor in the period between 2006 and 2013, when Superman had to go through even more development hell--some people were getting rich off of developing movies that would never actually be made. I sometimes wonder if they really wanted to make movies, when they could make money for themselves without having to bother with getting anything done for real.

During all that period, every approach was explored, so it's not like the "clean slate" idea wasn't examined, given several treatments and put in front of executives who could make that happen if they wanted long before 2006.

Of course, at the same time there were several TV shows featuring the character. And each took their own approach to Superman. Any one of those approaches could have been used. Yet the executives in charge of movie development didn't seem to bother considering any of those treatments or using any of the actors or producers involved with those series.

Whatever was going on at Warner between 1987 and 2013 was not as simplistic as some people make it appear to be. I don't believe so, anyway. Someone should write a book about that.

True we tend to think of terms of "legitimate" reasons. It could have just been convoluted business and a means of getting a paycheck for brainstorming ideas that would never see the light of day.

[Xon-Ur]

It always bugged me that Lucius Fox was made into this tech guy, instead of being the financial officer for Wayne Enterprises. It also took those Batman movies in a different direction--just like the previous run of movies, with their ornate sets and baroque villains, took Batman in a different direction. Wheareas, what I always wanted was the Detective. Bruce doesn't spend a lot of time doing real detection, solving mysteries. More often other characters are solving mysteries for him in the Nolanverse. I don't think I'll ever get the kind of Batman movie or TV show I wanted--the '66 TV show had Batman solving more mysteries, even if it was just for comic effect.

That's another huge error on the part of Nolan and Goyer. I guess being a detective wasn't "realistic" enough. The thing is, many people who haven't read the comics and/or really know the character seem to think that all it took to make Bruce Wayne The Batman was the death of his parents. The fact is, Bruce Wayne was already an exceptional child before his parents died. He was extremely intelligent and bright, a fact explored by many writers over the decades. His parents' deaths directed that brilliance towards a war on crime instead of, say, technological development and advancement.

Nolan's Bruce Wayne is just a rich kid who had the money and the means to fight crime, and even then, he didn't really have that much drive to do it as he retired after what was probably a year of fighting and then passed the torch to an even less-experienced guy so he could go off and be with Selina Kyle. Who, I might add, he barely knew. Guess his parents' murder didn't have that much of an effect on him after all.