Are you offering the scene where Superman fails to save a room full of people from an explosion--something even Snyderman could do, or at least save most of them--and then just stands there and looks vaguely upset afterwards as a defense of the character? It's the worst scene in BvS. God, for the days where "Superman would never go away for five years" was the best example of a movie Superman acting un-Supermanny...
Anyway, Superman Returns: I love it, it's the only film that has Clark and Lois acting like adults with adult issues. I've also admired how James Marsden's character doesn't turn out to be a villain or a terrible person, which would be the easy path for this movie to take.
Superman fails to save those people because Lex Luthor used a victim from the Kryptonian Invasion as a Trojan Horse to murder innocent people. Luthor has always been a crooked individual, and this scene demonstrates that. Keep in mind Superman went to Capitol Hill to address his actions across the world and meet the man in the chair. Senator Finch asked, and Superman complied. Because it was the right thing to do, to assuage fears and concerns about him, and Luthor took advantage of that.
Casual reminder that Captain America also failed to notice a bomb on Crossbones, before it detonates. Cap himself, several Avengers and scores of people would've been killed had Scarlet Witch not contained the explosion. However, SW sent the exploding Crossbones into a building and killed a dozen or so Wakandans regardless. The point in both BvS and CACW is that villains will do any and everything to hurt, kill and maim heroes and the civilian population. I thought we all understood this.
Pathos means suffering. Also the root of Pathos is 'path'. We get the words sympathy and empathy from Pathos.
I'd add as reason 11 to revisit: the "old lady" Lex bilks out of her fortune is Noel Neill, the first on-screen Lois Lane. Loved that. And I've always enjoyed the film despite it's somewhat subdued tone. I liked the film's honest attempt to get inside the emotions of the characters. Although I wouldn't have minded if they'd thrown in a giant robot or two on the rampage.
only thing good about Superman Returns is the Special effects and Spacey's portrayal of lex luthor. otherwise its the worst superman movie ever. people may not like the snyder version of superman but at least Cavill has more lines and more acting experience then Routh did.
Last edited by AndrewBatman82; 06-26-2016 at 02:28 PM.
I really like Superman Returns for a lot of reason. This was a true follow-up to Superman and Superman II. I really loved Brendan Routh as Clark Kent and Superman. There are parts in this movie that are just beautifully done. Routh really nails the character. It's really too bad that he didn't get to portray the character in another movie.
Find me on Instagram and Twitter - @arfguy
https://whoaskd.com/
People still expect Superman to reverse time by flying at hyperspeeds. And ridiculous, er, fantastical stuff like that. That's why they can't accept that a lead-lined compartment concealed a bomb — because, you know, Superman can't see through lead.
yeah, the plot. it was, "lets raise a bunch of rocks out of the ocean," it just made for an ugly and colorless movie. i liked routh, and it still pulled $400 mil, they shoulda kept going, they'd be so much more on the ball now! DC needs to get some humor in their movies, stat! they have such an amazing decades-long stash of crazy superhero teams and whacked vigilantes.. Lobo should be able to blow Deadpool out of the water, if done right.
Superman Returns isn't even in serious running for "one of the worst superhero movies ever." It certainly has some major flaws, but even most of those weren't necessarily of the crippling variety. It's understandable why hardcore fans who'd been waiting decades for a new Superman movie might have bristled at what Returns offered but, at the same time, most of what the movie did offer it handled pretty well, even if it wasn't necesarily what the audience wanted. It was a highly polarizing and divisive movie with a number of questionable creative choices and paths taken by Singer. But it was not, in the main a poorly made movie at all.
Actually in the extended version Superman DID save survivors in that explosion in the Capitol building. It happened. Plus, the people in that burning room were already extra crispy. ;P He failed to save them because the bomb was wrapped in lead so he couldn't see and seriously even Superman wouldn't have expected someone to blow up the place.
Quicksilver saved an entire school full of people from an explosion. QS>>>> Snyderman
Where was any of that explained within the current continuity of the DCCU? I don't recall any bits in either MoS or BvS where his inability to see through lead is explained, how Luthor would be privy to that knowledge, or that lead was actually added to the wheelchair for that express purpose? All it comes off as is reaching for explanations for poor storytelling. In film it's supposed to be "show don't tell", but at some point relevant info should be either shown, told, or both. All the above is relevant info and should be explained at some point in the context of one of the two movies, at least if the filmmakers don't want Superman to come off as incompetent or lazy (super speed + super senses + angry mob outside + today's socio-political environment = a responsible Superman would have taken the .0001 of a second to X-ray the courtroom, realized he couldn't see through the wheelchair, examined it with his other senses and taken action to avert the crisis).
TeekVids <-- Check out the news every Sunday
I remember i didn't see it in theaters because it had the feel of a movie that was made to be a quick cash in on the super hero movie craze.
I had the same feeling about the Green Lantern movie and Fantastic Four 1 & 2. which i also didn't see.
It's just that when i saw the trailer for Superman Returns it just didn't excite me, it just left me feeling "meh."