Eleven Years Later, thoughts on the film SUPERMAN RETURNS

[manofsteel1979]

"Such a waste" is really what sums up my feelings. I don't hate it as much as the OP does but im not sure I like it either. It's a huge 'meh'. Some things were absolutely fantastic. The plane scene. The bullet and eye scene. The score was great. Visually it's beautiful. The cast , aside from Kate Bosworth as Lois,is mostly great. Hell, I'll go as far to say the idea of doing a spiritual sequel to The first two Donner Movies was an inspired choice, but the mistakes were so agregious and the execution lacking that it fell apart.

It's biggest Failure is it's basically a very expressive fanfilm. That and after 19 years it needed to be a new thing. A fresh start. Before Superman Returns,after the first two XMen films, I used to call BIRTHRIGHT the comic book equivalent to what I thought a Bryan Singer Superman movie would be like. When he was chosen, I was stoked. That didn't last.

[Clark_Kent]

I was incredibly hyped for SR in 2006...I was 5 when Superman IV came out, so I had never seen a Superman film on the big screen before. I had seen every Batman film in theaters (even saw the '66 movie at a free showing one time) but never a Superman one. My soon to be 24-year old self pre-ordered tickets for back to back shows on opening day and I was like a little kid again.

And I won't lie: at the time, I loved it! Keep in mind, in 2006 the only big budget Superman stuff we had were Superman 1-4. We didn't have Superman animated movies, we didn't have great television special effects. Smallville used its effects wonderfully for the time period (2001 to 2006, at that time) but it wasn't Superman, it was Clark. Nothing had shown us what a modern asuperman movie could be, so when it came out I was pretty enamored. The best parts were in the trailers of course (the plane rescue, bullet to the eye, "So Long, Superman"). The story was weak, but I had grown up with the Reeve films so I was used to that (and before anyone grabs their pitchforks, lets not pretend the Reeve films had strong stories. They were carried by Reeve's charm and the special effects). Lois was terrible, but I overlooked it because it was a Superman MOVIE! In the modern age! How could it NOT be awesome??

My excitement for the film carried on throughout the fall as I eagerly awaited the eventual DVD release in December. I counted down the days. I was on a work trip when it released, but I brought a dvd player with me for the hotel room so I could watch it immediately. I put the disc in...and 2.5 hours later I was mortified. What had happened to the movie I loved so much? It was so...boring. Routh was too skinny, the S too small, his suit was awful! Bosworth was a bigger sore thumb than ever, and Spacey was cringy. The best character in the entire film is Cyclops, because he was heroic and kind and brave. He was Superman more than Superman was.

And then it hit me. The excitement of the first Superman movie I would see in a theater...the special effects...the new score...it had all tricked me. What had been an exciting theater experience (the audience CHEERED when he saved the plane!) was dull and lifeless and boring on a television. It was heartbreaking. In fact, I've only ever experienced this one time since: I saw Gravity in Imax 3D on opening day, and was enthralled. But at home, I've never made it through the Bluray.

Superman Returns taught me a valuable lesson. Some films are meant to be seen on the big screen, and enjoyed there. And that's it. So enjoy the magic while it lasts. I will always remember that experience, and seeing it in the theater will always be one of my favorite theater experiences of all time. But I can't watch it today.

[godisawesome]

I kind of consider Superman Returns to be the mirror-universe counteroart to MOS, not necessarily in terms of good/bad but more in terms of diametrically opposed philosophies, concepts, strength and weaknesses as a Superman adaptation. SR is continuation of previous films trying to argue why they're still relevant; MOS is a reboot trying to redefine the character to attain relevance. SR is Silver Age; MOS is Post Crisis. SR's weaknesses are largely conceptual; MOS's are largely executional.

While I personally see MOS as better bith as a film and as a franchise movie, SR isn't bad per se; it's disappointing. The ensemble cast is a collection of excellent actors. The directing on a scene by scene basis is very good. The film's art design is excellent. But it's indecisive and wants to have its cakes and eat it too: Superman is severely weakened by kryptonite but can lift a continent of the stuff, the first two Donner films are in continuity but it doesn't want to dwell on the actually rather chilling implications of the son plot, Lex has been made more dangerous by prison but can only use the exact same scheme from the first movie but stupider, Lois is supposed to have shown she's powerful and independent but acts like a jilted lover, the list goes on and on.

On SuperHeroHype, we had a "Making a Better Superman Returns thread". Here was my response:

Okay. Considering Bryan Singer's love for the original Superman movie, there's two ways I see this: one that feels like a simple answer that keeps the cast, crew, and overall outline the same, and a more thorough overhaul. The simple answer wouldn't necessarily solve some of the interpretation problems I have with Donnerverse Superman, while the second would.

Simple Solution- Literally just make the whole film a remake. Same cast. Same director. Same art direction. Even some of the same scenes. Just remove all references to previous films, and remove the kid storyline. Also, go ahead and have Routh and Spacey stop doing impressions of other actors and just *act*. Bosworth and Routh could work great as up and coming reporters; Routh's shown he has an excellent dorky-yet-endearing nature all his own, and Bosworth honestly feels like she'd be a great ambitious freshly graduated Lois. And Spacey's still really good in SR without getting full freedom, so just imagine what would happen if he got full reign with the character.

More Thorough Overhaul- Keep the idea of Superman being gone for a while, but have Superman driven off planet by Brainiac teaming up with Luthor to run an anti-Superman media campaign where Clark tells Lois about it before hand and she knows who he is, but neither of them know about her pregnancy. So when Clark gets back, instead of having scorned Lois Lane, there's a whole other subtext and issue with Clark feeling guilt for leaving Lois pregnant, still loving her, and her being more legitimately torn between two loves. Also, just to screw with the audience, Brainiac hijacks Richard White as a drone Superman has to fight. And the film ends with Luthor backstabbing Brainiac to gain his intelligence and he then plays it off as being possessed the entire time and starts "LexCorp."

Oh, and in general, I'd follow the rules about Post-Crisis Superman characterization for his personality, his supporting cast's personalities, and his powers for both pitches: at no point should his powers and weaknesses fluctuate as wildly as they did in any Donnerverse films. No turning back time, no effective date rape kiss, no inconsistent reactions to Kryptonite, and no lifting a solid continent into space.

[Sacred Knight]

Found this blog post from last year that sums it up beautifully for me: 10 Great Things About Superman Returns

To add to that, I'll just say this: despite the atrocious story decisions like the 5 year absence and the Super Kid, Superman Returns features the Iconic Superman and is vastly superior to all of the Snyderverse and New 52-inspired animated films combined.

Highly disagree with that. Netiher MOS Superman nor any New 52 Superman incarnation were creepy-ass stalkers nor did MOS Superman nor any New 52 Superman incarnation knock up a woman then leave her high and dry for years. I'll take New 52 Superman over both incarnations. Along with the above problems, Returns Superman was morose and uninteresting. MOS Superman had/has a similar problem in attitude.

I also find myself disagreeing with everything on that list. I mean, the first thing it mentions is the action. Then goes on to make excuses for thelackof action in the film and how it actually constituted action. The plane rescue was highly action-oriented. I'll give them that. All the other stuff though? Meh. And yes, Superman punching things i.e, fighting, goes hand-in-hand with the character. Its essential. Its blasphemy to try and claim otherwise, frankly. The list is like an ultimate apologist letter, basically nearly everything it claims is wrong from my pov.

[adkal]

Found this blog post from last year that sums it up beautifully for me: 10 Great Things About Superman Returns

To add to that, I'll just say this: despite the atrocious story decisions like the 5 year absence and the Super Kid, Superman Returns features the Iconic Superman and is vastly superior to all of the Snyderverse and New 52-inspired animated films combined.

The dramatic potential of Superman leaving Earth, even for a short time, is rich and can lead to some great storytelling. I think the reason this idea fails in Superman Returns is because Superman is gone too long; in “my version” of the film, I’d like to see Superman gone for only a year. This seems more “realistic” given that the Kryptonian tech Superman has is probably generating wormholes that would lead to less travel time.

The underlined part of the quote, taken from the blog post, ignores what was established in the first movie: Kal was a baby when he was placed in the pod, and he arrived on Earth as a child of around 3 years old, so the timeline in the movie is actually shorter than it should be, based on what was put forward in the Donnerverse

For me, personally, the kid is Lois and Richard's, resulting from the effects of the lights being on out in the Fortress while Superman was safe in the molecule chamber - they just assumed he was Kal's because of the emergence of the powers.

[Kuwagaton]

If the lack of fight scenes was the biggest or only problem, I'd probably call it a great movie. Returns came immediately after the last year of Joe Casey, that excellent chunk where Superman didn't throw a punch. So it would've been hard from there to argue that it wouldn't work, although it's not like the comics passed up on sci fi for baby mama drama.

Oh, and I have to say, I thoroughly hated the idea of Ben Affleck beating up Superman, but Kal Penn is actually the worst.

[superduperman]

I liked it better than MOS. The fact that he didn't kill anyone alone makes it a better movie. The hospital scene, at least to me, represents how the world is supposed to see Superman. I don't consider it part of the Donner movies. It's a stand alone movie with a similar history to the Donner movies. That's it. I'm kind of sorry it didn't take off because apparently we would have gotten to see Brainiac in the sequel! It would have essentially been what the comics are now. Superman and son saving the world! That having been said, they probably should have just rebooted the franchise instead and left the Donnerverse alone.

[Last Son of Krypton]

From a technical standpoint is a well made movie but soooo boooring.

[Buried Alien]

SUPERMAN RETURNS had some great scenes, but they didn't add up to a great Superman movie.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[DochaDocha]

No turning back time, no effective date rape kiss, no inconsistent reactions to Kryptonite, and no lifting a solid continent into space.

To make a short explanation long, back when JLU was on TV and the episode "The Great Brain Robbery" aired, there was a mini-controversy. Flash and Luthor's minds got swapped, and at one point Tala pulled "Luthor" into a bedroom and started playing scrabble, and some fans were sooooo offended and accused Flash of being a rapist. I believe on his old personal site, Dwayne McDuffie (RIP) addressed the issue by saying (I think) it was pretty silly to compare a real world problem with something so ridiculous from sci-fi/fantasy. I kind of feel like a similar principle should be applied to the amnesia kiss analysis. It's not really worthwhile to compare some sci-fi/fantasy nonsense to a real-world, amoral, criminal act. But if you did want to make that comparison, then I'm going to argue that changing one woman's perception of reality is probably nowhere nearly as unethical as warping reality for five billion people.

Back to Superman Returns... probably the worst consequence of forcing it to be a Superman II sequel is the implication that in Superman II, Lois and Superman had an intimate relationship, shortly after Superman went on a field trip, Lois met Richard, and then got serious with Richard so soon afterward that it became plausible to all that Jason was Richard's kid. Such a rubbish implied timeline of events. And then despite insisting that it was a sequel to Superman II, Singer further insisted that the amnesia kiss never happened (well, I guess this is a good thing for many ) even though the events of that movie are supposed to be canon. What a mess.

[Tra-EL]

Awful, worthless, outdated, 20 years too late and a design team that should have been fired the moment they got the approved green-light from their superior's. Outside of the plane rescue scene and the nostalgia of the John Williams theme that quickly wore off, everything, to me, about Superman Returns was horrid.

[manofsteel1979]

To make a short explanation long, back when JLU was on TV and the episode "The Great Brain Robbery" aired, there was a mini-controversy. Flash and Luthor's minds got swapped, and at one point Tala pulled "Luthor" into a bedroom and started playing scrabble, and some fans were sooooo offended and accused Flash of being a rapist. I believe on his old personal site, Dwayne McDuffie (RIP) addressed the issue by saying (I think) it was pretty silly to compare a real world problem with something so ridiculous from sci-fi/fantasy. I kind of feel like a similar principle should be applied to the amnesia kiss analysis. It's not really worthwhile to compare some sci-fi/fantasy nonsense to a real-world, amoral, criminal act. But if you did want to make that comparison, then I'm going to argue that changing one woman's perception of reality is probably nowhere nearly as unethical as warping reality for five billion people.

Back to Superman Returns... probably the worst consequence of forcing it to be a Superman II sequel is the implication that in Superman II, Lois and Superman had an intimate relationship, shortly after Superman went on a field trip, Lois met Richard, and then got serious with Richard so soon afterward that it became plausible to all that Jason was Richard's kid. Such a rubbish implied timeline of events. And then despite insisting that it was a sequel to Superman II, Singer further insisted that the amnesia kiss never happened (well, I guess this is a good thing for many ) even though the events of that movie are supposed to be canon. What a mess.

I think if they had just treated the 1978 film as the origin story and approached it as a straight up stand alone sequel alongside II,III, and IV and not tied it directly to the events of II , I think it would have been on better footing. Attempting to make it a direct follow up to II while ignoring III and IV was a huge mistake . Actually the biggest​ mistake was not just rebooting it from scratch, but If they had just made it a stand alone film implicitly and Perhaps not have revealed Jason to be possibility Supes kid until a sequel, it may have fared better. It may have still underperformed but I think we may have gotten a solid sequel without the franchise brick wall that was Superman's out of wedlock kid.

[Osiris-Rex]

Just that Superman 2 came out in 1981 and in the 35 years since then they still haven't gotten Superman right in the movies.
Meanwhile Lois & Clark, Smallville, and Supergirl show just how easy it is to make a Superman that most nearly everyone can embrace.
Can only hope that in Justice League they finally get it.

[CharlesInCharge]

My (long-winded) thoughts on Superman Returns:

I never saw it in the cinema. My first time watching it was on a DVD I bought for 5 Euro in 2010, four years after it came out. However, years before that, on TV, I'd seen the last 30-35 minutes of Superman: The Movie, where Lois is caught up and swallowed by the earthquake. This was my only experience of that film, up until I sat down and watched it properly, a few months after I first saw Superman Returns. After I compared the two films, I came out vastly preferring the original. Returns, when I looked back, just seemed like a hollow imitation of everything that had I loved about S:TM. I found myself caring about the relationship between Superman and Lois in the original and was genuinely able to feel for Superman when he discovered Lois had died. When it came to SR, on the other hand, I found the relationship downright creepy, with some horrific (and I mean horrific) implications. Going back to the earthquake scene, I think the distinct lack of anything with that kind of gravitas or sense of danger was what really killed SR for me. Now, I was, and still am, somewhat disappointed with Man of Steel, but when I heard in 2010 that the sequel to SR had been cancelled and Superman was getting a hard reboot, I was over the frickin' moon.

That being the case though, I'll list a few things I enjoyed about Returns:

The beginning of the plane rescue scene, when you see the red boots land on the hull, still gives me chills.


Lifting up the remains of Luthor's yacht with Lois, Jason and Richard trapped inside. However, this scene is really carried by the accompaniment of the original Williams score, rather than anything new or inventive.


The acting of the cast, especially Kevin Spacey. Controversially, while Kate Bosworth wasn't perfect, I don't think she was as bad as most people make her out to be.


Richard White, who was the most likable character in the film.


Some nice visuals such as the plane rescue, Superman hovering above earth (before he hears the break in), the new design for Jor-El's hologram and the Kryptonian rock formation.


Overall, I think this was a movie that could have been better, had it had a new and original villain and found it's own identity, rather than aping S:TM and SII so much. Also, the Biblical symbolism was way too heavy handed. I understand some of the complaints about it in Man of Steel, but I think it's worse here. Also, this movie becomes even more of a wasted opportunity, when you consider the idea that, had it been successful, Nolan might have been able to be talked around and begun prepping the groundwork for a shared universe in The Dark Knight.

[Tuck]

I liked it better than MOS.

You and the critics.

Seems like the opposite with fans.

Strange.

(For the record, I think Returns is better. In fact, I watched it again the day after I saw MOS and I liked it better than the last time I had seen it. Still not a particularly good movie though.)