So is the pressure on Superman?

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Galactus wrote:

---

It is funny, I have heard many people say they do not want Batman to get a Robin, who is apart of Batman lore, but they want Superman to have a son, which is not a part of Batman lore.

Superman having a son was one of the least popular elements of Superman Returns, at least so far as opinion expressed online. You may have heard some people say that they liked it, but it certainly wouldn't constitute a majority opinion. Far from it.

[Galactus]

I was only referring to this board. I have said this before. I have not had a single person I know personally tell me that they like SR and I know a very diverse group of people. Not a single one. Which actually is quite amazing to say the least, because you always know someone that likes almost every movie.

[Bad Bishop]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

What an incredibly moronic thing to say.

"Somewhat successful" translates to "was less successful than expected but wasn't a money-LOSER."

"Critically-acclaimed?" By WHOM? A few newspaper writers didn't loath it completely? I can't recall a whole lot of "gushing praise" for the film... or a whole lot of media recognition... or much of ANYTHING (except for Frank Rich having apparently gotten into seeing Routh in tights maybe?).

You can find the major reviews at Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes if you really want to. It's actually true that SR received a lot of highly positive notices, including Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. At the time, it was really exciting to see the first Superman film in 19 years receive good reviews from the major trade publications and various newspapers. They weren't all positive, of course. Roger Ebert thought the movie was too sullen, among other faults. Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times was not too impressed either.

Negative reviews from mainstream critics did not dwell too much on Superman's alleged stalking, his poor judgment when it comes to fathering a child with Lois, Lex Luthor's obsession for land (not again) or Kate Bosworth's age. These are the major lingering issues to which fans keep returning. That doesn't mean they're illegitimate complaints; it just means that fans bring a different and perhaps broader agenda when they see a Superman film.

[Captain Craig]

Out Of My Vulcan Mind wrote:

---

Superman having a son was one of the least popular elements of Superman Returns, at least so far as opinion expressed online. You may have heard some people say that they liked it, but it certainly wouldn't constitute a majority opinion. Far from it.

Exactly. And this statement from Mark Waid(who I think is a top 10 writer currently in the industry) only strengthens that opinion for me.

“I so wanted that movie to work,” said Mark Waid, “but every choice they made in that movie was wrong. If you’re making the movie in a vacuum, and there will be no other Superman movies ever again, go ahead and give him a son. But otherwise, that’s a staggeringly awful idea. What are you going to do next? Either the kid has to be a part of his life, or get superpowers, which no one wants to see. I want to go to them and say, ‘What were you thinking?’”

For all the discussion about the kid being a bold and daring move that would open new channels of storytelling Waid nails it. It does the opposite IMO. Unless you want to decentralize Clark as the force of your narrative you don't place a kid in there. It's at least as compelling a reason to not have Robin in a Batman movie although at least Robin is canon.

I think its quite clear that the further we get away from SR and less likely it seems Warners is going to get to Man of Steel the more people speak out against Returns and more towards a reboot. Its quite telling I think.

[Cary L. Brown]

Galactus wrote:

---

I was only referring to this board. I have said this before. I have not had a single person I know personally tell me that they like SR and I know a very diverse group of people. Not a single one. Which actually is quite amazing to say the least, because you always know someone that likes almost every movie.

That's an excellent point... granted, every last one of us is speaking anecdotally when we talk about "everyone we know" but it's ODD when we don't see at least a little bit of divergence of opinion, unless we happen to live in a survivalist ranch or a monastery or someplace like that...

Now, compared to the ALTERNATIVES which had been put out for "new Superman movies" this flick was orders of magnitude better... I think we all know that. But that takes us back to the same point I was trying to make earlier... specifically, that the further you deviate from the source material (especially true when you're talking about POPULAR source material!), the worse off you end up being.

"Superman Returns" was the LEAST BAD option... and it was a passable movie as a result (as opposed to "unbearable" like most of the other alternatives which were proposed... ie, a superman who couldn't fly, wore armor, and of course Krypton was never destroyed... among other travesties). From that standpoint... it wasn't an AWFUL movie. It was simply a disappointment... not a travesty like we might've gotten.

But that doesn't mean that it's as good as it could have been... as it SHOULD have been. IMHO, of course!