Superman Returns Director Explains What Went Wrong

[Thaluikhain]

He also felt that he might have overplayed the romance between Lois Lane and Superman, in an unconscious effort to get more women coming to see it. He said that he had noticed that on the whole, not a lot of women went to see superhero movies, but they would go and see films like The Devil Wears Prada.

Wait, what? You can just hammer an awkward romantic angle into any old movie, and get a demographic that wouldn't be interested otherwise to go and see it?

Damn, now that's he's admitted to that, everyone's going to be doing it.

 

[Wandrecanada]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but Superman just doesn't work in a movie. Or as a comic for that matter.

There's just nothing interesting about the guy. He's indestructible, he can fly, has laser eyes, can breath ice, is faster than a speeding bullit; How the hell do you make an engaging story about someone like that? The only way I can see how is to make it all philosophical about what it's like to be a god among men. Then again, it has to be a summer blockbuster so it'll need a lot of action. And seeing as Supes is "Superman", action scenes are going to be boring since he's nigh-invulnerable.

I thought he movie was okay, for a Superman movie.

Superman stories aren't good because they are about Superman. They are good because of Clark Kent.

 

[duchaked]

The movie wasn't BAD, but I understand how it fell short of peoples' expectations from a Superman movie. It opened well with the mounted gatling gun and the plane crash scenes (very much what we wanted), but then the action got stripped leaving the emotions to hold the film up alone (not...very well).

But Singer does good stuff, and do hope to see more from him. Think he was too hard on himself here. Nothing wrong with depth, and symbolism (Biblical or not) is seen in a lot of film and literature. When used tastefully, it's perfectly fine.

 

[Canid117]

So thats why the villain was Lex Luthor and yet another stupid real estate scam?

 

[Kingsnake661]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but Superman just doesn't work in a movie. Or as a comic for that matter.

There's just nothing interesting about the guy. He's indestructible, he can fly, has laser eyes, can breath ice, is faster than a speeding bullit; How the hell do you make an engaging story about someone like that? The only way I can see how is to make it all philosophical about what it's like to be a god among men. Then again, it has to be a summer blockbuster so it'll need a lot of action. And seeing as Supes is "Superman", action scenes are going to be boring since he's nigh-invulnerable.

I thought he movie was okay, for a Superman movie.

Superman stories aren't good because they are about Superman. They are good because of Clark Kent.

THis is, imo, the main reason i've never really been a big fan of the any of the superman movies... the last one least of all.

I'm in my eairly 30's. The superman *I* grew up reading was the superman for the mid 80's on, AFTER the Crisis. The post crisis superman was fundementuly different from the per crisis superman in one key way. Per crisis superman saw himself as Superman, and Clark Kent as a disguise. Post crisis superman saw himself as Clark Kent, and Superman as the discuise. I MUCH prefure the post crisis superman. But the Donner films and Return are very much Sliver age tellings, and I've never liked that. On top of everything else I listed wrong with the film in my last post.

IMO, the best live action superman was Dean Cain. Yeah i said it. And i belive it too. And that show was INTRESTING because it was much more about Clark Kent and his life then it was about Superman and his adventures. The above poster is only partly right. Superman, can be a boring charater at times because it's really kind of hard to challange him, physically. But he's only HALF the charater...

To tell a GOOD superman story you need to work both aspects of the Charater. You neglect Clark Kent, your neglecting the more intresting half of the whole superman charater. IMO of course.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but Superman just doesn't work in a movie. Or as a comic for that matter.

There's just nothing interesting about the guy. He's indestructible, he can fly, has laser eyes, can breath ice, is faster than a speeding bullit; How the hell do you make an engaging story about someone like that? The only way I can see how is to make it all philosophical about what it's like to be a god among men. Then again, it has to be a summer blockbuster so it'll need a lot of action. And seeing as Supes is "Superman", action scenes are going to be boring since he's nigh-invulnerable.

I thought he movie was okay, for a Superman movie.

Superman stories aren't good because they are about Superman. They are good because of Clark Kent.

I never realized Clark Kent was interesting either, but then I'm not an expert on Superman.

But even if that is true, the average masses don't give two licks about Clark Kent, they want to see Superman do Superman stuff and Hollywood knows this. And like I said, action scenes with the man of steel become boring very quickly because there's nothing for me to feel excited about since he's indestructible.

And I don't see Zack Snyder nor Chris Nolan changing that.

 

[Kingsnake661]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but Superman just doesn't work in a movie. Or as a comic for that matter.

There's just nothing interesting about the guy. He's indestructible, he can fly, has laser eyes, can breath ice, is faster than a speeding bullit; How the hell do you make an engaging story about someone like that? The only way I can see how is to make it all philosophical about what it's like to be a god among men. Then again, it has to be a summer blockbuster so it'll need a lot of action. And seeing as Supes is "Superman", action scenes are going to be boring since he's nigh-invulnerable.

I thought he movie was okay, for a Superman movie.

Superman stories aren't good because they are about Superman. They are good because of Clark Kent.

I never realized Clark Kent was interesting either, but then I'm not an expert on Superman.

But even if that is true, the average masses don't give two licks about Clark Kent, they want to see Superman do Superman stuff and Hollywood knows this. And like I said, action scenes with the man of steel become boring very quickly because there's nothing for me to feel excited about since he's indestructible.

And I don't see Zack Snyder nor Chris Nolan changing that.

Most superhero movies would suffer from this... with is exaserbated by the fact you pertty much KNOW who's going to win, the hero isn't going to die, and what not. Superhero movies rarely have any... i don't know, suspence too them because any reasonable person knows for the most part how it's going to end... And superman is far from the only real "indistructable" hero out there... The Hulk is pretty indistructable... I'd wager Thor will be too... And argument could be made for Iron Man... but i digress.

Superman's indistructableness isn't the problem IMO when it comes to his movies... the problem IMO is the story tellers aren't taking the time to make him likable or relatable in the movies...(IMO) He lacks CHARATER, which IMO is Clark Kent. Not to mention the fact that in the movies half the time he's up against really LAME villians and that doesn't help much... admititly. The new movie at least has a real SUPER villian to deal with... that's... something. But it'll still be pointless if they can't make superman an engaging charater like he is in the comic book...

 

[For.I.Am.Mad]

I love how so many movie makers are now coming back to explain why their movies were terrible. In the last few months we've had Indy 4, Tranformers 2, and now Superman Returns, plus a couple I can't remember.

Why do people involved in these things feel the need to apologise all of a sudden? They didn't used to, and we were fine with it. Back in the old days the most we ever got in response to Batman and Robin was George Clooney, years later, saying he also thought the movie was godawful. He didn't go on and explain every facet of why he thought it was awful, he just said he thought it was crap.

If filmmakers want to make up for a crap movie, they should do it by making a better movie. Unless their career is dead, in which case I don't want to hear from them ever again.

Ticket sales are really, really bad now. They're trying anything to get butts in the seat short of making a good movie. Also I think Hollywood might be having a huge guilt trip right now.

 

[SimGrave]

Last week...
Apologies for Transformers 2.

This week...
Apologies for Superman Return.

Next week...
Apologies for Star Wars Episode 1-2-3?

Next month...
Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, Daredevil, Electra, Catwoman, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider and many more?
Who knows, it's beginning to look like a pattern or a new trend!

Well, at least they acknowledge it could've been better, even if not perfect.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

What's with directors suddenly going 'we did this wrong, which is why it's bad!' on us? It's bad because we didn't like it.

Yeah, I came on to post this, we get Shia saying indy 4 was his fault, Bay saying Transformers 2 was bad, and now Singer saying Superman was bad. Next we'll have directors pre-emptively apologuising for movies they're about to release.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Christ, does nobody have the balls to stand behind their work anymore?? I mean it's good that you're willing to own up to your mistakes and all, but damn it, don't cave to what the masses say. Have the balls to stand behind the work that you do!

 

[Tarkand]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but Superman just doesn't work in a movie. Or as a comic for that matter.

There's just nothing interesting about the guy. He's indestructible, he can fly, has laser eyes, can breath ice, is faster than a speeding bullit; How the hell do you make an engaging story about someone like that? The only way I can see how is to make it all philosophical about what it's like to be a god among men. Then again, it has to be a summer blockbuster so it'll need a lot of action. And seeing as Supes is "Superman", action scenes are going to be boring since he's nigh-invulnerable.

I thought he movie was okay, for a Superman movie.

Superman stories aren't good because they are about Superman. They are good because of Clark Kent.

I never realized Clark Kent was interesting either, but then I'm not an expert on Superman.

But even if that is true, the average masses don't give two licks about Clark Kent, they want to see Superman do Superman stuff and Hollywood knows this. And like I said, action scenes with the man of steel become boring very quickly because there's nothing for me to feel excited about since he's indestructible.

And I don't see Zack Snyder nor Chris Nolan changing that.

I don't think Clark Kent is likable one bit to be honest. The over trusting goofy country bumpkin is painfully stereotypical.

No, the greatest superman stories are those stories that happens in 'Elseworlds' (i.e. One Shot story that don't affect the continuity) - like Red Son (What if Superman had landed in Siberia instead of Kansas), or Kingdom Come (With Lois dead, Superman lose a lot of his ties to humanity and decide to take control of the superhuman population). Those stories, just like you said Shinji, truly explore what it is to be godlike and the ramification of having one person being so powerful that he essentially become a world power in and out of himself. Incidently, most of those stories either ignore or give very little screen time to Clark Kent.

Morality and responsibility take one a whole new degree when Superman is trying to change the world... stories where he's stopping a bank robbery or catching a plane or even protecting Metropolis are just waste of his potential. This is not to say that he shouldn't be doing those, but those should be 'side plot' for him, not main focus of an entire issue (or issues, ugh).

More than any other superhero, Superman gets his ass handed to him by continuity. His key draw is that he's powerful enough to change the world and make it a better place (or try anyway - changing the world is something even Superman could fail at)... but they're putting him in the continuity straight jacket and he can't do much but stop 7-11 robberies or fight the villain of the week (Which he can't possibly fail at).

 

[ghall89]

Next week...
Apologies for Star Wars Episode 1-2-3?

Yeah, that'll never happen.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but Superman just doesn't work in a movie. Or as a comic for that matter.

There's just nothing interesting about the guy. He's indestructible, he can fly, has laser eyes, can breath ice, is faster than a speeding bullit; How the hell do you make an engaging story about someone like that? The only way I can see how is to make it all philosophical about what it's like to be a god among men.
I thought he movie was okay, for a Superman movie.

Didn't Hancock try this? Or at least come close before the deciding to scrap the interesting question for mindless explosions.


As for the Superman movie apology:

"He also felt that he might have overplayed the romance between Lois Lane and Superman, in an unconscious effort to get more women coming to see it. He said that he had noticed that on the whole, not a lot of women went to see superhero movies, but they would go and see films like The Devil Wears Prada. He wondered if that fact might have subconsciously influenced his decisions when he was making Superman Returns, which he said was "nostalgic and romantic."


You notice that it is his subconscious that made his movie suck. He did not make an active decision that was wrong, he was tricked by the appeal of The Devil Wears Prada. Nevermind the countless hours he spent with his movie, the true culprit is the success of
actresses like Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway for being in the limelight with their success. Yes his decision to try and incorporate elements from a movie in a completely different genre that is targeted to a separate demographic had nothing to do with it. Stupid brain and its stupid subconscious.

 

[ReverendJ]

I'm just sick of studios deciding to make a COMIC BOOK MOVIE, and then trying to shed the "comic book trappings." Wtf? The property is fine as is, that's why it's been selling for however many decades, no need to fuck with it.

I'd have liked to hear him apologize for a superhero movie where the only person who gets punched is freaking Superman, who apparently fights crime with a wry smile.

Rant over. I won't even go into the super-brat, the character inconsistencies, the Kryptonite Island, or he fact that I bought tickets for 6 people to see the damn thing only to have one of the most awkward and depressed post-movie lunches I've even had.

 

[millertime059]

Most superhero movies would suffer from this... with is exaserbated by the fact you pertty much KNOW who's going to win, the hero isn't going to die, and what not. Superhero movies rarely have any... i don't know, suspence too them because any reasonable person knows for the most part how it's going to end... And superman is far from the only real "indistructable" hero out there... The Hulk is pretty indistructable... I'd wager Thor will be too... And argument could be made for Iron Man... but i digress.

Superman's indistructableness isn't the problem IMO when it comes to his movies... the problem IMO is the story tellers aren't taking the time to make him likable or relatable in the movies...(IMO) He lacks CHARATER, which IMO is Clark Kent. Not to mention the fact that in the movies half the time he's up against really LAME villians and that doesn't help much... admititly. The new movie at least has a real SUPER villian to deal with... that's... something. But it'll still be pointless if they can't make superman an engaging charater like he is in the comic book...

You are right. and very close to what I see as the crux of a good superhero film. Yes, we all know that (usually) the hero will not die at the end of a movie. You can't build a franchise off of death, but you can of failure.

Think about it, is Star Wars ever in doubt (viewer perspective)? Not really. What makes it compelling is what they lose, how they struggle, their failures, and sacrifices.

In Gladiator you know that Commudus is going to fail, and Maximus will somehow get revenge. What you don't know is how much it will cost him (a lot).

Lord of the Rings, the one ring destroyed etc. What cost to destroy Sauron? Only the heroics of a few individuals stops the complete annihilation of Gondor, but they were all ready to march to certain death to achieve final victory.

I use these examples to show how for most movies there is never doubt to the victors of any story. Superhero movies are no different.

Iron Man- save the world yes, but will he destroy himself in the process (alcohol, partying, palladium poisoning, general self hate)

Spiderman- will he be able to sacrifice his own desires for the greater good? Where does his personal sacrifice end? Should he even sacrifice some things for others?

X-Men- The ideology wars between Prof X and Magneto. Who is right? Do the ends justify the means?

Hulk- Will he lose himself.

Now Superman. What could have made him interesting is playing off his 'human' side. His relationship with Lois could have been interesting. Instead of playing on his superhuman interests conflicting with his relationship they went with the tired love triangle. Even then they didn't fully commit to it. They either needed to strip that out and make pure action movie (easy way, loud dumb action movie), or tone back the heroics and make it a more personal tale where the conflict has something to do with his unique abilities. As it stands it doesn't go fully any direction, and ultimately that's why it fell flat for me.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Most superhero movies would suffer from this... with is exaserbated by the fact you pertty much KNOW who's going to win, the hero isn't going to die, and what not. Superhero movies rarely have any... i don't know, suspence too them because any reasonable person knows for the most part how it's going to end... And superman is far from the only real "indistructable" hero out there... The Hulk is pretty indistructable... I'd wager Thor will be too... And argument could be made for Iron Man... but i digress.

Well, yes and no.

Ofcourse we know a superhero is always going to win, but the way he or she accomplishes this victory is where the suspense lies. We know Spider-Man is going to win in the end, but how he does this and at what cost is thrilling to see. This is because eventhough he's a superhero, he still bleeds and has emotional ties to other people. And his powers aren't all encompassing, there are many things he just can't swing, crawl or Spidey-sense his way out of. Things that a supervillian can use against him.

Superman on the other hand can use his powers to do basically anything, even rearrange time. So it's not a matter of if he's going to win or not - we already know he will - but how he's going to win. And this victory usually consists of nothing more than 'fly over there and smash it.'

It's kind of like watching the Jedi fight the battle droids in the Star Wars prequels. They simply dispatch them without any effort or threat, and that makes it boring to watch.

Superman's indistructableness isn't the problem IMO when it comes to his movies... the problem IMO is the story tellers aren't taking the time to make him likable or relatable in the movies...(IMO) He lacks CHARATER, which IMO is Clark Kent. Not to mention the fact that in the movies half the time he's up against really LAME villians and that doesn't help much... admititly. The new movie at least has a real SUPER villian to deal with... that's... something. But it'll still be pointless if they can't make superman an engaging charater like he is in the comic book...

Now, I only know Superman from the old cartoons, the movies, the TV show and the animated series, so I might be talking out of my ass (Feel free to tell me if I am).

But I don't think a new Superman movie should try to focus on the character of Clark Kent. He always came across as just a throw-away character that Kal-El used as a disguise to observe the puny humans. I know he was raised as Clark Kent by his adoptive parents, but the moment he'd grown into his powers and discoverd his true origins, he basically became a superman with the mindset of a superman. Kinda like Dr. Manhatten. but more cuddly.

Only in the Lois and Clark series did I find Clark Kent a good character that could easily hold his own on screen without the super suit. Also, every iteration of Superman has tried to make Clark more characteristic and interesting, but there just doesn't seem to be anything to him so maybe Hollywood should stop trying.

I think it would be much more interesting to focus on Kal-El as a character. No Clark Kent, no Superman, but the alien man from Krypton who walks the Earth under the two aforementioned aliases. Make it about him not really having a place on this earth dispite being its defender; Sort of like an actual orphen. Give the audience a look in the mind and being of someone who is a god. Superman Returns kind of leaned toward this direction, but never really followed through.

In order to make Superman interesting, I think you need to incorperate religious undertones of godhood instead of trying to avoid it.

 

[Covarr]

I wasn't bothered by Superman Returns attempting to recreate the magic of the classics. A return to the tone of the old was a good idea. The problem was more in that he rehashed the PLOT of the first and second films, reusing old ideas instead of building on them.

Hell, I loved the movie anyway. It wasn't as good as Superman or Superman II, but it was far better than a lot of the other blockbuster crap from the past decade.

P.S. Thanks