Superman Returns was like watching a big-budget fan film that's sole purpose was to pay homage to Richard Donner's original. It really had no soul of its own, but it is far, far FAR better than the diabolical Superman 4. That film was just insultingly bad.
Given the choice between the two, I'd be far happier watching Superman Returns. Its actually not a bad film - it just not a great one, either.
Yes it is a sad story . Superman 4 could off been a lot better if it had its full budget etc etc .CR was involved with the story and even with the music I think. I am sure superman 4 is linked to supergirl the movie which came out before s4.I think CR was supposed to be in super girl but turned it down but I can not remember why. Then Superman 4 was made. Does anyone remember why he turned the role down?
I've attempted a quick paragraphation of the mess...
As we come to superman month in june lol. I want to talk about 1 film thats probaly been voted the worst superman film out even worse than superman returns and thats saying something lol. Was superman 4 really as bad as people make out. When i first saw the film when i was a child i loved the film i didnt see any problems with it i thought it was the best 1 out of the other 3 nukes was a really scary bad guy. Then as i grew up and learned about special effects storylines etc i watched the film again and realized it was just bad in so many ways. BUT after reading the back story to it its not actually the films fault. Its the people at cannon.
At first superman 4 was supose to have a budget of 34 mil that was cut down to just 17 mil. I mean warners was making only 4 films at the time so had plenty of money to spend cannon was making over 30 films so had to spread the money out. Also another problem superman 4 was supose to be over 2 hours and for some reason over 45 min was cut so the plot is just spread all over the place. When nukes is using that stupid growling voice saying where is the woman your thinking What woman how the heck do we know what woman your talking about.Youve only just looked at a paper lol.
But im also gonna say the films bad yet i still love it. Look at the acting first sadley only a few only really try to bring out a good performance as usal Chris Reeve was just amazing as superman whatever happens to me he is and will always be him.You can see he is really trying to do his best. Gene hackman was brill margot kidder was just ok. There was also some bad performances Nuke man i said when i first saw the film he was really scary now looking at it hes basicaly whering a disco suit lol. Jon cryer was pointless. Another film i love is the music it really works in every sceene does it beat superman 1 you can decide on that.
I really liked the story of what they was trying to do obviously they had to keep changing things. But it could have been a huge sucess if they had the budget. Another problem with the film is the locations. You look in the daily plannet does it even look like the daily plannet from the previous 3. Another really sad thing and i know this actually upset Chris Reeve was walking to the united nations he really wanted it to be outside the real united nations wheres the cars all over the place police is there huge huge crowds. Instead it was filmed in milton keynes and sadley it does show.
Another bad thing is the special effects the flying is just bad almost every scene you can actually see the wires. When i see superman 4 i dont think its the worst film as i liked the story and what they was trying to do. But overall it is bad cause it never stood a chance from the word get go.
I haven't watched it since its release, and I have no intention of doing so anytime soon. My predominant memory of Superman 4 is the FX being so bad his suit was more green than blue in some scenes.
Can't understand why so many people rubbish Superman returns. The effects were faultless the story was OK and the ending was acceptable. To me they got a couple of things wrong. Lois Lane was totally miscast, the BIG effect in the movie, the plane sequence was so well done that everything that came after that couldn't compare, and I'm still not sure about introducing the son (?) into the storyline. People comlain that it was a rip off of the Donner Superman films but that was the whole point, it was made deliberatly as a sequel to Superman 2 - ignoring 3 and the mess that was 4
Superman Returns was too dark. I mean literally dark. I could barely see anything on screen. It also was an odd mixture of sequel and reboot. It should have been a straight reboot.
Can't understand why so many people rubbish Superman returns.
Well,
The effects were faultless the story was OK and the ending was acceptable.
"Ok" and "acceptable"; so an average story vibe all round then.
Add to that,
To me they got a couple of things wrong. Lois Lane was totally miscast, the BIG effect in the movie, the plane sequence was so well done that everything that came after that couldn't compare, and I'm still not sure about introducing the son (?) into the storyline.
Miscasting, anticlimactic and questionable writing decisions.
People comlain that it was a rip off of the Donner Superman films but that was the whole point, it was made deliberatly as a sequel to Superman 2 - ignoring 3 and the mess that was 4
On its own, as a standalone, it may have been received slightly better. But by making it a follow up to 2 and ignoring 3&4 it raised the ante. It sent out the message that 3&4 weren't good enough, that Returns would right those wrongs and give us an instalment worthy of the first two movies. But what we got was "ok" and "acceptable", miscasting, etc.
Superman Returns did pull off quite an impressive coup - it made Superman boring. It came across as nothing more than a slick approximation of former glories. Overly reverent, yet at the same time soulless, and too ponderous and indecisive to really do its own thing.
Lois Lane wasn't just miscast, they all were. Routh didn't have the chops for the title role, and Spacey proved a pathetic waste, never quite sure what sort of film he was in. Add on a fumbled, uninvolving plot (real estate - like, wow) and punchless action in both senses, and it's not too hard to see why Warners failed to turn this into any sort of event picture.
Luckily they seem to have atoned for their sins, if the anticipation for MoS is anything to go by.
Superman Returns was really dull in places, I loved Brandon Rouths performance but Lois Lane was awfully miscast and Kev Spacey as Lex Luthor wouldnt frighten my cat and had no menace about him.
Also too much time spent with secondary characters who added nothing to the movie.
Comments
Given the choice between the two, I'd be far happier watching Superman Returns. Its actually not a bad film - it just not a great one, either.
As we come to superman month in june lol. I want to talk about 1 film thats probaly been voted the worst superman film out even worse than superman returns and thats saying something lol. Was superman 4 really as bad as people make out. When i first saw the film when i was a child i loved the film i didnt see any problems with it i thought it was the best 1 out of the other 3 nukes was a really scary bad guy. Then as i grew up and learned about special effects storylines etc i watched the film again and realized it was just bad in so many ways. BUT after reading the back story to it its not actually the films fault. Its the people at cannon.
At first superman 4 was supose to have a budget of 34 mil that was cut down to just 17 mil. I mean warners was making only 4 films at the time so had plenty of money to spend cannon was making over 30 films so had to spread the money out. Also another problem superman 4 was supose to be over 2 hours and for some reason over 45 min was cut so the plot is just spread all over the place. When nukes is using that stupid growling voice saying where is the woman your thinking What woman how the heck do we know what woman your talking about.Youve only just looked at a paper lol.
But im also gonna say the films bad yet i still love it. Look at the acting first sadley only a few only really try to bring out a good performance as usal Chris Reeve was just amazing as superman whatever happens to me he is and will always be him.You can see he is really trying to do his best. Gene hackman was brill margot kidder was just ok. There was also some bad performances Nuke man i said when i first saw the film he was really scary now looking at it hes basicaly whering a disco suit lol. Jon cryer was pointless. Another film i love is the music it really works in every sceene does it beat superman 1 you can decide on that.
I really liked the story of what they was trying to do obviously they had to keep changing things. But it could have been a huge sucess if they had the budget. Another problem with the film is the locations. You look in the daily plannet does it even look like the daily plannet from the previous 3. Another really sad thing and i know this actually upset Chris Reeve was walking to the united nations he really wanted it to be outside the real united nations wheres the cars all over the place police is there huge huge crowds. Instead it was filmed in milton keynes and sadley it does show.
Another bad thing is the special effects the flying is just bad almost every scene you can actually see the wires. When i see superman 4 i dont think its the worst film as i liked the story and what they was trying to do. But overall it is bad cause it never stood a chance from the word get go.
I totally agree with you that SM IV was poor to say the least. I'm really looking forward to the Man of Steel trilogy however.
Well,
"Ok" and "acceptable"; so an average story vibe all round then.
Add to that,
Miscasting, anticlimactic and questionable writing decisions.
On its own, as a standalone, it may have been received slightly better. But by making it a follow up to 2 and ignoring 3&4 it raised the ante. It sent out the message that 3&4 weren't good enough, that Returns would right those wrongs and give us an instalment worthy of the first two movies. But what we got was "ok" and "acceptable", miscasting, etc.
So, I think you've answered your own question.
Lois Lane wasn't just miscast, they all were. Routh didn't have the chops for the title role, and Spacey proved a pathetic waste, never quite sure what sort of film he was in. Add on a fumbled, uninvolving plot (real estate - like, wow) and punchless action in both senses, and it's not too hard to see why Warners failed to turn this into any sort of event picture.
Luckily they seem to have atoned for their sins, if the anticipation for MoS is anything to go by.
Also too much time spent with secondary characters who added nothing to the movie.