“Superman is the King Daddy of all superheroes; everybody knows that”, is how director Zack Snyder put it to a Hall H crowd at this year’s San Diego Comic-Con. The reaction in the room was one of muted disbelief. To a world that had experienced The Dark Knight, and was just weeks away from the premiere of the The Dark Knight Rises, it seemed like a preposterous thing to say. Made all the more preposterous for knowing that the only full length, live action Superman feature of the last 25 years was 2006′s underwhelming and criminally boring Superman Returns.
With a production budget somewhere north of $200 million, Bryan Singer had delivered a superhero movie that felt as long as Gone with the Wind, with about the same amount of action, but none of the critical and popular acclaim.
When Snyder gets to back up his bold statement in June of 2013 with the release of his Man of Steel, he would have done well to not repeat the mistakes of Singer’s very sincere, but very flawed attempt at resurrecting the Superman movie franchise.
Here are the top 10 mistakes from Superman Returns that Man of Steel must avoid.
10. Metropolis
Superman Returns tried very hard – mostly successfully – to establish Metropolis as a city that is in every way a match for a real-life metropolis like New York City. (Something that Tim Burton famously ignored by creating a shockingly empty Gotham City for his 1989 Batman).
What the movie forgets to do, is to populate this Metropolis with real people. People who react to the events around them in a believable way. That doesn’t just mean running away from a gas line exploding underneath your feet, screaming in terror, and managing to only come across as either victims or apathetic.
Other than for a few newspaper articles and a nice standing ovation at a ballgame, Metropolis hardly seems to acknowledge or care that the hero of their city has returned.
We have to know what it is that Superman spends his life protecting, if we’re going to be asked to care about the outcome. A hero is nothing if he has nothing worthwhile to save. Man of Steel owes us a Metropolis with some character.
We are currently seeking Superman Returns contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Superman Returns contributor, click here.
You Might Also Like...
- 5 Best Superman Movie Moments
- 10 Reasons Why SUPERMAN RETURNS Doesn’t Suck
- SUPERMAN UNLEASHED is one Superman reboot pitch
8 Actresses Who Tricked You Into Thinking You Saw Them Nude
11 Irresistible Movie Moments That Wore Out Your Pause Button
100 Things Wrong With The Dark Knight Rises [Video]
10 Scenes You Won't Believe You Missed in 2012
10 Most Infuriating Movie Cliffhangers
10 Major Plot Holes You Probably Missed
10 Happy Movie Endings That Probably Had Horrific Consequences
12 Ruthless Movie Villains Who Were Defeated By Complete Fools
17 Comments
This was a good article. I just want to particularly praise the writer for making the point 7 mistake – creepy superman. Spot on!
Personally, I’d like to see them jettison the whole “Clark as a reporter at the Daily Planet” stuff. I get why the original story included it, but if we really consider the idea an indestructible alien man concerned with the saving of the human race, would he really waste his time writing articles for one human newspaper in one city?
Might struggle to agree with some of your points, but most of this article was waaaay off. And the movie never was, and never will be as bad as you try to make it sound.
Superman is my favorite superhero. Thus, I am a Superman Returns apologist… But you make some excellent points. If Man of Steel fails (which I doubt that it will with Nolan and Snyder in charge), I fear that it will be the end of Supes on the big screen and possibly any other DC character besides Batman.
While Nolan is one of my fave directors Synder has done some shocking films, his films on RT,
74%,
59%,
64%,
51%,
23%,
with all due respect to Zack his films have never really been acclaimed where as when they picked Nolan he had done Memento and Insomnia, both of which are brilliant,
I like everyone else wishes that Superman returns could have offered a different take on the character but sometime the Bryan Singer bashing goes a bit too far.
I will give you that Superman was a bit creepy and that perhaps his song to Richard Donner could have been far more subtle. But the other areas I disagree with. Metropolis is just a backdrop and nothing more. This is a false requirement the stems from the fact that Nolan gave Gotham City character, but that should not be a requirement of a superhero movie. Marvel movies do just fine without adding distinct characteristics to the setting of the movies. The self obsession was probably needed in some ways in order to bring closure to them. The pull of Superman’s past versus his earthly home is one of the unique things that define Superman. that had not been explored in movies since Superman II which was 1980. How could that be left out of the film? That is what gives the character emotional depth. As far as never placing Clark’s absence with Superman’s. I can totally see that happening. When you are preoccupied with the spectacle of Superman why would you be wondering if he is someone else. For all they know Superman does not have a disguise and just shows up when he is needed. You are assuming that people think he is hiding among them. I will also grant you that Superman could have done with more ominous threats but if done right Luthor could be that threat. Lastly I though the visuals were fine. Lois lane was not the best rendition of the character but passable.
I think the main sins of Singer was first to put the “action” in the middle of the movie and then have the slow letdown…and second introducing Superman’s child out of nowhere in an awkward way. Those two things I think more than anything compromised the movie in a way that could not be salvaged.
Hmm. I’m not sure. When you look at Superman Returns as a stand-alone film, it fails. But if you look at it as a conclusion to Superman 1 and 2, a lot of these issues make sense. For him to take a movie to care about, primarily, himself makes sense in light of the big picture.
I enjoyed the entire article, but numbers 4 & 2 hit the nail on the head. IMO, these two things are what DESTROYED “Superman Returns”. The rest of the points are important but had 4, & 2 been done correctly, The movie may have worked better. That of course if with the assumption that the STORY would have been better also (which it wasn’t). Also, I’m glad the whole “Superman having a child” thing is not on your list because in all honesty that didn’t destroy the movie. That was more of a bad story decision, but in the bigger scheme of things, it wasn’t that big of a deal (If I remember correctly, Donner himself was writing a Superman Comic story, “Last Son” in which Supes and Lois had a son for a minute). It was obviously done to coincide with that comic story. And @Patrick – I’m sorry dude but you give Bryan Singer wayyyy more credit than he actually deserves. He isn’t this great director you make him out to be. He destroyed the original X-Men films (and the new one b/c it still follows his continuity and he executive producer) and he completely destroyed “Superman Returns”. He’s ONLY made two good films IMO and those would be “Unusual Suspects” & “Valkyrie”.
You have GOT to be kidding me! How was X-Men “destroyed?” Look at its Rotten Tomato Rating 82% among critics and 83% among audiences… and the sequel was widely considered to be BETTER! I am no die-hard fan of Singer, but I think he can be a great director if left to tell the story he wants to tell. In his case I think he was trying TOO hard to give fans a “safe” and familiar interpretation of Superman when he should have been more bold. Finally the last X-Men film did NOT follow on what Singer did. In fact a number of the major characters from the first two films (Storm, Rogue, Nightcrawler, Cyclops, and even Professor X) were not in the film, killed off, or had tiny parts in order for Ratner to arbitrarily put in as many mutants as he could. The difference was glaring.
Agree with all the points stated in the article. Thank goodness for point 7 was wondering if anyone else would have thought the same way. Moment that scene when Superman goes to Lois’s home was the icing on the faults that the writers had wrong.
Now point 9 has more flaws then what was written surprise no one picks up on this. Superman gets his power from the yellow sun and for Superman to return to his home origin would leave him… well ah, normal, helpless like the citizens of earth. The writers and the directors had no clue another heavy fault for a movie failure.
HE NEEDS A Chloe
Enough already with the Richard Donner crap. This is not a Christopher Reeve tribute movie! Move on already! This is the main reason the last one was so bad!
Kevin acted the way he did as Lex because of Singer’s direction. He was not allowed to make the role his own and control it like Robert Downey does with Iron Man.
who’s “Louis”?
The main problem with this movie was a lack of action and the villain.
The casting was fine but the action was missing. Lex Luthor is a good side villain for superman, but really the villain should have been someone else that could stretch him and he has an amazing rogue gallery with good powers and Origins that would easily come to the big screen.
Brainiac and Darkseid are two villians in particular i would like to see.
Yet another opportunity to unnecessarily bash Superman Returns by disguising your rant as a article about some other film. Your intent is so transparent, so predictable, so boring. The next film stand on its own merits when it’s released.
1 out of 10 ain’t bad. Most people would call that a failure.