Yeah nothing at all to do with her age, she was just completely unlikeble in the role. It didn't make sense for her to have one guy in love with her, let alone two!
Bryan Singer: Why 'Superman Returns' Didn't Work
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
Yeah nothing at all to do with her age, she was just completely unlikeble in the role. It didn't make sense for her to have one guy in love with her, let alone two!
I just watched SR for the first time in a long while the other day, ironically enough. I think it was on FX or something.
As I was discussing with my wife, there is a LOT to like in the movie, taken individually, but it never adds up to a good or cohesive whole. I thought MOST of the casting was perfect. Kevin Spacey did a great job updating the Gene Hackman Luthor. As others have said, Routh was note perfect. I think the cinematography and action choreography is great. The plane rescue sequence is terrific, and I love the shot where you see the bullet bounce off Superman's eye. I love the use of Brando's Jor-El, and the how it plays in with the super-kid. I loved the scene where he repeats the "The son becomes the father, and the father becomes the son" speech to the boy at the end. In fact, I like the IDEA of the son, and the way it brings superman full circle. There is a lot more I could praise, but I will stop here.
Now, for the bad...Kate Bosworth as Lois. Honestly, this is some of the worst casting in any comic movie, ever. She is too young, for one, but I could absolutely overlook that if she had any of the fire, intelligence, or passion that Margot Kidder (Hell, or even Teri Hatcher or Erica Durance) portrayed. She had none of it. team that with a stunning lack of chemistry with Routh and you've automatically killed the entire central plot of this movie. It's a love story, but never for one moment do you understand WHY superman loves her, or do you think she should leave Richard. On That Note... Richard White. This is not a knock on Jason Marsden... he was great. But, as written he's too good of a person. it leads to dramatic confusion. We are supposed to want Clark and Lois together, but when you make Richard damn near a superhero himself, you don't want him to be hurt like that. It's a terrible piece of screenwriting. I also think having Luthor's motivation be ANOTHER land-grab was an absolutely awful idea.
Now, I could blast the script, and the lack of action... but I personally think this would be a radically different and better movie with 90% of the same script if they just corrected the Richard plot and recast Lois. If we cared at all about Clark/Lois the couple, and were rooting for them to get together, we wouldn't feel the lack of action so much.
As I was discussing with my wife, there is a LOT to like in the movie, taken individually, but it never adds up to a good or cohesive whole. I thought MOST of the casting was perfect. Kevin Spacey did a great job updating the Gene Hackman Luthor. As others have said, Routh was note perfect. I think the cinematography and action choreography is great. The plane rescue sequence is terrific, and I love the shot where you see the bullet bounce off Superman's eye. I love the use of Brando's Jor-El, and the how it plays in with the super-kid. I loved the scene where he repeats the "The son becomes the father, and the father becomes the son" speech to the boy at the end. In fact, I like the IDEA of the son, and the way it brings superman full circle. There is a lot more I could praise, but I will stop here.
Now, for the bad...Kate Bosworth as Lois. Honestly, this is some of the worst casting in any comic movie, ever. She is too young, for one, but I could absolutely overlook that if she had any of the fire, intelligence, or passion that Margot Kidder (Hell, or even Teri Hatcher or Erica Durance) portrayed. She had none of it. team that with a stunning lack of chemistry with Routh and you've automatically killed the entire central plot of this movie. It's a love story, but never for one moment do you understand WHY superman loves her, or do you think she should leave Richard. On That Note... Richard White. This is not a knock on Jason Marsden... he was great. But, as written he's too good of a person. it leads to dramatic confusion. We are supposed to want Clark and Lois together, but when you make Richard damn near a superhero himself, you don't want him to be hurt like that. It's a terrible piece of screenwriting. I also think having Luthor's motivation be ANOTHER land-grab was an absolutely awful idea.
Now, I could blast the script, and the lack of action... but I personally think this would be a radically different and better movie with 90% of the same script if they just corrected the Richard plot and recast Lois. If we cared at all about Clark/Lois the couple, and were rooting for them to get together, we wouldn't feel the lack of action so much.
Or make Richard the protagonist of the movie and run with it.
You know, I never considered that...
You could never REALLY do that, but I bet someone could fan edit the move to focus on Richard protecting his family from the creepy superhero, and it would be a more compelling film.
What I really liked about Superman Returns was that Richard was actually a good guy, not the cliché bad wrong boyfriend. And that the superboy subplot was very lowkey. He only pushes the piano (and we never actually see that), and then throws his asthma spray away, and that's it. That was well done.
But the movie should have ended with the fade out after Superman crashed into the park like a meteor. That would have been a great ending.
What I don't get is why a movie that made 400 million worldwide causes "it didn't work" statements. Batman Begins made 372 million, and look how that turned out. Star Trek made 385 and it's apparently teh shiznit.
But the movie should have ended with the fade out after Superman crashed into the park like a meteor. That would have been a great ending.
What I don't get is why a movie that made 400 million worldwide causes "it didn't work" statements. Batman Begins made 372 million, and look how that turned out. Star Trek made 385 and it's apparently teh shiznit.
Ah, Richard was a pussy. Who rooted for him?
First, it's about expectations. SR was expected to bring in a BILLION dollars worldwide, so 400 million does seem like a disappointment compared to that.
Two, there's budgetary reasons. According to Box Office Mojo, BB cost 150 million to make, and SR cost 270. And that's just the official production budget. You always want to add on AT LEAST 100 million for marketing and distribution costs, and Superman also has tens (if not hundreds) of millions in silent costs, all the money thrown at the aborted movies in the 90's and early 00's (Tim Burton, Kevin Smith, JJ Abrams, McG) that WB hoped SR would recoup for them.
EDITED TO ADD: A third factor is also critical reception. Batman Begins made less money, technically, but it is generally regarded as a very good film, and there was excitement about a sequel immediately. This was absolutely not the case with SR. Batman Begins was also hampered by a very bad film (Batman & Robin) that was relatively fresh in people's minds, which absolutely kept some of the casual moviegoers away from BB in theaters. Superman 4 was an awful film, but it was 25 years before SR.
as for Richard, I agree I thought it was nice that he wasn't a cliche... but it is a SUPERMAN film, not a Richard White adventure. audiences want Lois and Clark together. that's the mythos. anything else is, and I hate to reuse this phrase, dramatic confusion.
I liked seeing Superman on a gurney being rushed to the hospital. It was a new and unusual sight to see.
Agreed, agreed and agreed/
Unfortunately the ER scene got some unintended laughter. Remember the part where the needles were breaking on his skin? It actually got some good belly laughs at the screening I was at. There I was with tears in my eyes and wanting to do nothing more than scream: "He's dying! Show some heart you mean, cruel bastards!"
I liked the movie although it's one I find harder to sit through than others when I rewatch it. I don't think it being linked loosely to the Donner films was the problem, nor was it Routh.
I think having Lex pull a similar scheme with selling land was something I didn't like. I loved the Lex character. The super child was a bit iffy. Superman as a father that got a chick pregnant and did a runner? Didn't sit right with me and yet in some ways it was interesting enough to make me wonder how it would have developed in later movies.
I would have liked very much to have seen a super villain. I think the movie focused too much on the beauty and coolness of how Superman can save people. Catching the airplane looks great but took up too much time and i'm sure a lot of budget.
I think having Lex pull a similar scheme with selling land was something I didn't like. I loved the Lex character. The super child was a bit iffy. Superman as a father that got a chick pregnant and did a runner? Didn't sit right with me and yet in some ways it was interesting enough to make me wonder how it would have developed in later movies.
I would have liked very much to have seen a super villain. I think the movie focused too much on the beauty and coolness of how Superman can save people. Catching the airplane looks great but took up too much time and i'm sure a lot of budget.
I didn't think it was very romantic, really. That's a pretty weak excuse, but I guess he has to find some way to sugarcoat his failure, and he's not about to say, "Well I know it was too boring, uninspired, and depressing". There were a few poignant moments like Superman in the hospital and watching his son sleep (I really liked the use of silhouette there), but everything about it was wrong. The casting, the story, the characters, the dialog. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Superman was too passive and unlikable.
As someone who never saw the Christopher Reeve films I found it all a bit confusing and didn't get most of the references as a result. The film in general I thought was too dull and melodramatic. I think that if Superman Returns was a fresh start much like Batman Begins the previous year instead of trying to be a sequel to a 26 year old film it would've been a much better movie.
Fortunately we're finally getting that fresh start next year.
Fortunately we're finally getting that fresh start next year.
Oh, and the Donnor movies it was sort of harking back to?
THEY WERE PRETTY BAD, ALSO!
Oh come on. It was the late 70s/early 80s. It was a different time.
i dont understand the point of that photo poster.
I enjoyed Superman Returns quite a bit. Loved Routh as Supes and as Clark, and still wish they'd bring him back for another shot.
Yes, I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that Raiders and Empire, released around the same time, are still awesome movies, whereas the Donnor flicks suck.
