Controversial Superman Opinions

[DochaDocha]

I'm still just not sure how Superman Returns got made. I actually kinda like it years later, or at least that it's got enough good stuff to outweigh the bad in a mind not trying to focus on negativity. But I still don't know how it got past a whole boardroom full of guys who had to presumably know what they're doing on some level, and all of them said, "A quasi-sequel to twenty-five year old movie, which is also a fairly morose relationship drama about how Superman's girlfriend married another man and he's real sad about it? Yeah, this is the perfect way to reboot the character for a new generation! Much better than that Brainiac one, which we were gonna have Tim Burton make based on Death and Return, the most famous Superman story ever published!"

I mean... like I said, I think Superman Returns has a lot of really decent stuff under the hood. But that 25 year sequel gap, which also ignores specifics of the previous film, and meanwhile the film is a relationship drama about Superman's ex moving on without him while he's sad about it...

It just seems like something that would have struck some red flags at some point. Maybe Singer was just really good at pitching his case, I don't know much about the film's production. But it's just kind of weird to me that Returns exists at all.

Also Routh was robbed and really should have another crack at the role. He did a great job in both Crisis and Returns.

I really liked SUPERMAN RETURNS a lot. I was weeping in the theatre when I watched it the first time. That it tried to be like the first two Christopher Reeve movies was what made it so effective. I was bowled over that people didn't like it. And the outrage over the fatherhood plot completely surprised me. I never got that when I watched it the first time. If it's a bit clumsy, I see that as just the writers trying to get over a point they wanted to make, but having to climb over furniture to make it--they wanted to use the son becomes the father and the father becomes the son from the Donner movie, but they couldn't do it cleanly.

It seems unfair to focus on that one bit of the movie and not appreciate the wondrous cinematography and how Brandon Routh inhabits the role. My take on Routh is that he's more Clark than Superman, while Reeve is more Superman than Clark. To me Brandon Routh has a natural ability to play a dork--that's his comfort zone--so when he becomes Superman, it's really Clark pretending to be a character called Superman. Whereas, it's the other way around with Reeve.

There was more footage filmed about Superman going to find Krypton, but they didn't include it in the movie. In my head, I just thought Superman intended to make a quick trip to Krypton and get back the same day (or maybe the same month), but for reasons he didn't get back for a long time.

Just how Clark got Lois pregnant, I don't know. I never got the sense that anything carnal happened in SUPERMAN II, as it worked according to the rules of Mort Weisinger and the Comics Code. Maybe Lois just wished really hard and had a baby that way. But I'm even more confused about how William Murdoch accidentally fathered a son and then didn't know anything about him for years--that's the biggest MURDOCH MYSTERY of them all.

The problem with defending SUPERMAN RETURNS now is Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey. One doesn't want to appear to be defending them.

As someone who doesn't like Returns, I think these are fair. I can't be objective of the movie for various reasons, but the more I think about it, I think it's correct to say Singer took on the aspect of the ending if II where Superman and Lois kind of move on with their lives (from my understanding, Donner would've wanted to continue the movie series without focusing on their romance like he did in the first two). It kind of makes Returns even more of a spiritual successor than I'd like to give it credit for.

Overall, I think the scope of the movie works as a type of Superman story I could be interested in reading for a comic mini, but its position as a movie to rebuild a new generation of Superman fans is really peculiar. It performed about as well as it reasonably could.

[Jim Kelly]

I'm still just not sure how Superman Returns got made.

Actually I meant to answer this in my previous post but got sidetracked.

This seems pretty easy to understand, from my perspective. Superman had been in development hell for decades. Executives had heard all the elevator pitches and were just confused by it all. The elevator pitch for RETURNS is simple--let's just do what worked before. The two movies that worked were the 1978 and 1980 movie. It must have been such a relief to the executives--like when you get over a migraine headache and finally feel normal again.

This was something they could green light, because it didn't involve re-inventing the wheel. I don't think it was such a terrible idea, because even though all that time had gone by, they could still milk that nostalgia. We've seen movies do that most recently. Other factors were against the movie--having it saddled with the budget of all those other failed projects made it impossible for it to show a profit. But the important thing was to get a movie made, rather than constantly twisting in the wind. And now Superman continues to go through development hell.

[Ascended]

On paper, doing a sequel to Chris Reeve's films made sense; most people who knew Superman knew him (at least partially) from the Donner/Reeves films and they cast a very big, very long shadow across the entire franchise. At the time, the first two films were still among the most successful superhero movies ever made. It allowed WB to build on prior success, without the need of a real reboot or another origin story. Audiences and the studio both could go into the movie knowing what to expect and feeling comfortable, and the first two films were successful enough to provide a blueprint the studio thought it could follow to more success.

Made perfect sense.

On paper.

What we actually got was another thing entirely, and one that felt like Singer and WB had learned all the wrong lessons from Donner's films.

[Stanlos]

I really liked SUPERMAN RETURNS a lot. I was weeping in the theatre when I watched it the first time. That it tried to be like the first two Christopher Reeve movies was what made it so effective. I was bowled over that people didn't like it. And the outrage over the fatherhood plot completely surprised me. I never got that when I watched it the first time. If it's a bit clumsy, I see that as just the writers trying to get over a point they wanted to make, but having to climb over furniture to make it--they wanted to use the son becomes the father and the father becomes the son from the Donner movie, but they couldn't do it cleanly.

It seems unfair to focus on that one bit of the movie and not appreciate the wondrous cinematography and how Brandon Routh inhabits the role. My take on Routh is that he's more Clark than Superman, while Reeve is more Superman than Clark. To me Brandon Routh has a natural ability to play a dork--that's his comfort zone--so when he becomes Superman, it's really Clark pretending to be a character called Superman. Whereas, it's the other way around with Reeve.

There was more footage filmed about Superman going to find Krypton, but they didn't include it in the movie. In my head, I just thought Superman intended to make a quick trip to Krypton and get back the same day (or maybe the same month), but for reasons he didn't get back for a long time.

Just how Clark got Lois pregnant, I don't know. I never got the sense that anything carnal happened in SUPERMAN II, as it worked according to the rules of Mort Weisinger and the Comics Code. Maybe Lois just wished really hard and had a baby that way. But I'm even more confused about how William Murdoch accidentally fathered a son and then didn't know anything about him for years--that's the biggest MURDOCH MYSTERY of them all.

The problem with defending SUPERMAN RETURNS now is Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey. One doesn't want to appear to be defending them.

The DCEU we have stinks because of the same things that made Superman Returns stink. Instead of it being about SUPERMAN first and foremost the project was instead driven by Singer's fanwank for the Donner film. Just like WW84 and Patty's ooooooooooh wouldn't it be cute to do HEAVEN CAN WAIT shite, Superman Returns suffered from the poor priorities of the talent.

Oh well.

[sunofdarkchild]

Superman Returns was the second movie I'd ever seen and the first movie I saw in theaters that made me angry, and it would take well over a decade before another movie came out which accomplished that feat. The only other movies which have done that are Star Trek Generations, Rise of Skywalker, and New Mutants. It's actually the 'best' of those 4 because it has some redeeming qualities while the other 3 have none, but it's still in rare company as one of the worst movies I've seen and one I'd never rewatch. I'd rather watch Superman 4 and Batman v Superman.

[Kirk Brent]

Just how Clark got Lois pregnant, I don't know. I never got the sense that anything carnal happened in SUPERMAN II, as it worked according to the rules of Mort Weisinger and the Comics Code.

I find it difficult to interpret this any way other than carnal:

superman2-movie-screencaps.com-8771.jpg

[JAK]

EDIT: So I was having trouble sleeping and decided to redefine some specifics of green K. I'll say it emits radiation that essentially poisons Superman instantaneously. That's already what it does, but I'll add a few wrinkles. I'll say one of the effects of Kryptonite is that it also turns the stored solar energy in Superman toxic. So it's extremely painful and eventually becomes lethal with enough exposure. Since the stored energy that gets tainted no longer can be converted to do super feats, he gets weaker, too. Greater amounts of stored solar energy also intensifies the Kryptonite radiation sickness, making it spread faster and amplifies the ill effects, e.g. becomes more painful and more lethal. I'll just pseudoscience my explanation of this phenomenon by saying Kryptonite acts on the part of Kryptonian cells that store solar energy, essentially breaking them down. That part of his cells keep the stored energy stable. Breaking down that part of the cell makes the stored energy volatile and it's like there are mini-explosions going on in Superman's body when he's exposed to green Kryptonite because the energy is no longer safely contained and has nowhere to transfer safely.

Therefore, since I already said red sunlight makes Superman drain stored energy faster, I'll give red sunlight the ironic effect of being the best antidote for acute green Kryptonite poisoning, sort of like how if you accidentally ingested methanol a good remedy for that is getting drunk on ethanol. Not a perfect mechanical analogy, but I think you get the point. Maybe Kryptonians under red sunlight still get afflicted by Kryptonite, but the symptoms are far less severe. It amounts to something like having a bad case of the flu and could possibly be lethal.

Also, I thought about how in Kingdom Come Superman developed immunity to Kryptonite. I'd keep that general concept, but I'd flip the mechanism. Superman doesn't get more immune to Kryptonite. Instead, Kryptonite is susceptible to radioactive decay and doesn't have a particularly long half-life, say something like 20 years. So after five half-lives, or 100 years, a sample of Kryptonite would only emit about 3% of the radiation it emits now. That means a long-lived Superman will eventually outlast all existing samples of Kryptonite.

I absolutely LOVE all of this.

Watched some of the first season of Smallville lately, for the first time in maybe 15 years lol, and say what you want about that show but Tom Welling sure made a fine young Clark Kent.

He does. I'd generally say it was wasted potential, but you can throw a rock and hit wasted potential in live-action Superman stuff.

If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading the novelization by Marv Wolfman. It's based on earlier scripts and includes vital plot points. It was Luthor who faked the news about Krypton so that Superman would be gone during his parole hearing. Jason is also Lois and Richard's son.

Imagine if Superman Returns saw Superman deceived by Luthor into believing there are Kryptonian survivors. He leaves but is only gone for a year. He tells Lois he's leaving and she writes the story. Hiding in the ruins of Krypton is Brainiac. He follows Superman home, scans the Internet and realizes Luthor is the smartest human on the planet. They team up and Superman has to defeat their plans. It practically writes itself.

Interesting - I do need to read that. And that idea for Superman Returns is, imo, much better than what we got. I'd have to agree with Ascended: SR is how to take something that's superficially "correct-ish" and get so many other things so wrong that I have a hard time calling it faithful beyond the basic idea. There were so many ways that SR could have been more, but it was just mired in it's own sludge and I found that so infuriating - topped off with Superman essentially killing the two goons when he picked up the island. Took me right out of the movie. There are several "Donner-esque" ways I can name off the top of my head that would have been better.

My take on Routh is that he's more Clark than Superman, while Reeve is more Superman than Clark. To me Brandon Routh has a natural ability to play a dork--that's his comfort zone--so when he becomes Superman, it's really Clark pretending to be a character called Superman. Whereas, it's the other way around with Reeve.

I agree on Routh's portrayal, for sure. I think he *can* do it the other way around, but would need a better director for it. SR, imo, was scripted in an attempt to be "actor proof": Superman/Clark don't have many lines, and many that he does have are right from S:TM. It's a very odd choice, and it's too bad Brandon didn't have more to work with.

On paper, doing a sequel to Chris Reeve's films made sense; most people who knew Superman knew him (at least partially) from the Donner/Reeves films and they cast a very big, very long shadow across the entire franchise. At the time, the first two films were still among the most successful superhero movies ever made. It allowed WB to build on prior success, without the need of a real reboot or another origin story. Audiences and the studio both could go into the movie knowing what to expect and feeling comfortable, and the first two films were successful enough to provide a blueprint the studio thought it could follow to more success.

Made perfect sense.

On paper.

What we actually got was another thing entirely, and one that felt like Singer and WB had learned all the wrong lessons from Donner's films.

This. But then, we now know that "learning the wrong lessons from successful ip iterations" is basically company policy, at this point.

[manwhohaseverything]

Justice League and the Authority aren't just about Superman. If anyone is being compared to a knight there, it isn't him.

Again, no one is comparing him to a knight other than you.

Ok.i will take your word for it.Clark ain't a symbolic knight in these iteration.Then what is he being compared too?arthur? Arthur is as much a knight as the rest. It's very evident that Excalibur,seven samurai..etc are inspirations for these movies and books..

[marhawkman]

This. But then, we now know that "learning the wrong lessons from successful ip iterations" is basically company policy, at this point.

Nah, more that execs have very different ideas as to what is good or bad than fans do.

[Agent Z]

Ok.i will take your word for it.Clark ain't a symbolic knight in these iteration.Then what is he being compared too?arthur? Arthur is as much a knight as the rest. It's very evident that Excalibur,seven samurai..etc are inspirations for these movies and books..

Arthur is a king not a knight. Calling him a knight would be like calling a president a soldier.

Inspiration and full on comparisons are not the same thing. Superman's been compared to Samson, but I don't see him losing his powers when he gets a haircut.

[JAK]

Nah, more that execs have very different ideas as to what is good or bad than fans do.

No, absolutely not - it's definitely the former. My exhibit A for this is Miller's DKR. It caught fire due to symbolism and capturing the mindset of the era perfectly, and all WB/DC gets/understands from it is "Batman beating up Superman." They're even too stupid to realize that Superman won that fight.

Exhibit B is the Nolan films - WB literally trotted out a rep to say that the movies showed people want darker and grittier, and that they'd be looking to shape other DC properties in the same vein. I'm sure others can bring in a dozen other examples, those are just the first two that come to mind.

We can't even blame one set of leadership for this, because they've changed hands a dozen-ish times since the 80's yet somehow still make the same mistakes.

[Kirk Brent]

No, absolutely not - it's definitely the former. My exhibit A for this is Miller's DKR. It caught fire due to symbolism and capturing the mindset of the era perfectly, and all WB/DC gets/understands from it is "Batman beating up Superman." They're even too stupid to realize that Superman won that fight.

Exhibit B is the Nolan films - WB literally trotted out a rep to say that the movies showed people want darker and grittier, and that they'd be looking to shape other DC properties in the same vein. I'm sure others can bring in a dozen other examples, those are just the first two that come to mind.

We can't even blame one set of leadership for this, because they've changed hands a dozen-ish times since the 80's yet somehow still make the same mistakes.

You're reading my mind with these comments. I don't know why, but WB seems to be the problem, no matter who owns them. In live action, they have remained stubbornly committed to "filmmaker vision is most important." As Kevin Smith revealed, WB seems to look down on its comic book writers and creators. They didn't even have the rights to Superman and only did a movie because the Salkinds had the rights and wanted to move on them. They have always let filmmakers do whatever they want, which only works when the filmmaker knows and loves the source material. Donner and Michael Uslan seem to be the only two examples. Burton knew very little and didn't care when it came to Batman Returns. Schumacher cared even less, Singer just wanted to homage Donner's film, Nolan barely knew anything about comics and put realism before fantasy; even David Goyer didn't give us the Batman of the comic books, a young man with single and tireless purpose from the moments his parents' bodies grow cold. Snyder only wanted to make Superman and Batman in his image and the same has held for Joker, the Suicide Squad films, and The Pattman.

Until or unless WB decides to put the integrity of the characters before letting filmmakers "leave their mark," we'll be stuck in a cycle of diminishing returns.

[manwhohaseverything]

Arthur is a king not a knight. Calling him a knight would be like calling a president a soldier.

Inspiration and full on comparisons are not the same thing. Superman's been compared to Samson, but I don't see him losing his powers when he gets a haircut.

A soldier as president would have that as background..he would still be a solider.He would carry that value system.Also,arthur was meant to pass "worthy" test and became pinnacle knight material..They are all kings if you are going by that. arthur curry?king..hal jordan?worthy of the ring..king.Clark becoming a master from a loyal servant ain't better for me.

Clark doesn't..but,he does get tripped up by green rocks and red light.

No, absolutely not - it's definitely the former. My exhibit A for this is Miller's DKR. It caught fire due to symbolism and capturing the mindset of the era perfectly, and all WB/DC gets/understands from it is "Batman beating up Superman." They're even too stupid to realize that Superman won that fight.

How did clark win that fight?

clark lost bigtime from where i stand.He did what he should have,stay out of bruce's way.
in fact that wink to robin at the end felt like genuine deal superman..not a knight...but, a gladiator who was freed by a dark knight/ronin.It was the mark out moment for me.Superman felt himself as beat up,swollen and somewhat dirty dude(glasses and all)


It is fundamentally something that turned my head around concepts and lens used by writers till date in superman stories..This savior figure(condescending) fix humanity and lead it like a bunch of sheep.A knight(white knight in dkr's case) who is actually two face.That's what superman feels like to me.Even when the guy is good.It feels icky in a bad way for me.

People didn't get cynical.Superman writers are nostalgic for outdated concepts.

[JAK]

You're reading my mind with these comments. I don't know why, but WB seems to be the problem, no matter who owns them. In live action, they have remained stubbornly committed to "filmmaker vision is most important." As Kevin Smith revealed, WB seems to look down on its comic book writers and creators. They didn't even have the rights to Superman and only did a movie because the Salkinds had the rights and wanted to move on them. They have always let filmmakers do whatever they want, which only works when the filmmaker knows and loves the source material. Donner and Michael Uslan seem to be the only two examples. Burton knew very little and didn't care when it came to Batman Returns. Schumacher cared even less, Singer just wanted to homage Donner's film, Nolan barely knew anything about comics and put realism before fantasy; even David Goyer didn't give us the Batman of the comic books, a young man with single and tireless purpose from the moments his parents' bodies grow cold. Snyder only wanted to make Superman and Batman in his image and the same has held for Joker, the Suicide Squad films, and The Pattman.

Until or unless WB decides to put the integrity of the characters before letting filmmakers "leave their mark," we'll be stuck in a cycle of diminishing returns.

Thank you! I agree with SO much of what you say here, as well. There's one small thing you're very close to right on, imo - let me posit one slight adjustment and see what you think:

It's not so much that the filmmaker's vision is most important to WB. They say that, but it's not. It's that they get an idea in their head of what will sell based on a mix of mis-reads and focus groups, then hire directors/etc who they think will fit that and let them run (to a certain degree) - or if they have no idea of their own, they see "person x did well with this movie and we want that, let's hire them for this". It's why so many Batman directors get put on Superman projects; they don't often have ideas, but when they do it's almost always bad. lol But when something gets pushback (Batman Returns, Batman V Superman, etc), they will step in to ham-handedly try to fix it (Batman Forever, Justice League).

How did clark win that fight?

clark lost bigtime from where i stand.He did what he should have,stay out of bruce's way.

Well, let's see.. who was holding who's seemingly lifeless body at the end of it, after basically just taking punches and kicks so Bruce wouldn't get hurt worse than he already was? Not Batgod, I'll tell ya that much. Superman won because he was left standing in a fight he barely participated in. Meanwhile, Batman is so busy trying to be a badass that he doesn't understand until DKRIII that Superman was holding back the whole time. That last one is technically revisionist, but it is canon.

in fact that wink to robin at the end felt like genuine deal superman..not a knight...but, a gladiator who was freed by a dark knight/ronin.It was the mark out moment for me.Superman felt himself as beat up,swollen and somewhat dirty dude(glasses and all)

I don't know where you're getting this knight stuff, because I don't think of Superman that way and couldn't care less about the comparison, either. Superman is smiling (which, I agree, genuine Superman). He's got some bruises, sure, but that's the smile of a man who sees what's up and is calm enough to just let it slide. That's a winner's move - especially in the 80's context. And I say all this when I don't even like the DKR Superman.

It is fundamentally something that turned my head around concepts and lens used by writers till date in superman stories..This savior figure(condescending) fix humanity and lead it like a bunch of sheep.A knight(white knight in dkr's case) who is actually two face.That's what superman feels like to me.Even when the guy is good.It feels icky in a bad way for me.

And, imo, that's a shame, because you're missing out on the qualities of a great many Superman stories by attaching them to this savior figure thing. Look, I know it exists in extreme excess in certain takes, and I agree that, at this point, it's become frankly disgusting - especially in cinema, where it took hold the most. Trust me, you do not hate it more than I do. It was all I could do to not scream at the screen in rage when I saw it in SR and MoS. But you do see it in more places than I do, and imo places that it either doesn't exist or is barely there. And, as I said, that's a shame because that means you miss out on the enjoyment of some good stuff - and I am honestly, genuinely sorry that's the case.

If DKR did that to you, then that just continues to confirm it as the poison I've always said it was. DKR's Superman is, in some key ways, a perversion of what Superman was at the time with only a few saving graces sprinkled in. But it's done to present Superman in the story as symbolic to authority and what America was more openly turning into - which, while fine for symbolism on a story level, was a horrible thing to do to Superman as a character.

People didn't get cynical.Superman writers are nostalgic for outdated concepts.

This statement is ironic, given that Golden Age Superman is more relevant today than at almost any time, and that's an 84 year-old concept. As I get older, I find the idea of an outdated concept to be laughable, because life goes in cycles. However, some concepts don't fit a character, or don't fit beyond a certain degree.

[Agent Z]

You're reading my mind with these comments. I don't know why, but WB seems to be the problem, no matter who owns them. In live action, they have remained stubbornly committed to "filmmaker vision is most important." As Kevin Smith revealed, WB seems to look down on its comic book writers and creators. They didn't even have the rights to Superman and only did a movie because the Salkinds had the rights and wanted to move on them. They have always let filmmakers do whatever they want, which only works when the filmmaker knows and loves the source material. Donner and Michael Uslan seem to be the only two examples. Burton knew very little and didn't care when it came to Batman Returns. Schumacher cared even less, Singer just wanted to homage Donner's film, Nolan barely knew anything about comics and put realism before fantasy; even David Goyer didn't give us the Batman of the comic books, a young man with single and tireless purpose from the moments his parents' bodies grow cold. Snyder only wanted to make Superman and Batman in his image and the same has held for Joker, the Suicide Squad films, and The Pattman.

Until or unless WB decides to put the integrity of the characters before letting filmmakers "leave their mark," we'll be stuck in a cycle of diminishing returns.

Every comic writer has "made Batman and Superman in their own image". Fans only care about the image of these characters that either exists in their head or the one from the comic that they like. The Superman and Batman from the comics that we know now are very different from how they originally started out, largely against the will of their creators.