61. Between the expected box office take and the money the DVD will bring in, I doubt $$$ will be a problem....remember how they kept saying the original Batman and Forrest Gump never recouped? BULLS#!T!!!

Posted at 3:56PM on Jul 12th 2006 by Marco G

62. Superman returns was a visual feast and, from a writer's point of view, a believably involving story. While brevity more closely associates movies to comic books than to novels, hardly ever will these written mediums flawlessly transition to the cinematic medium. For comic books this is usually due to a lack of emotional depth on the part of the comic format, and for novels it is usually due to an abundance of emotional depth..

Rarely ever will comic book, wall-to-wall action, translate into a movie of enduring value. To make a comic book work on flim emotional depth is usually needed. What we have with Superman Returns, then, is an effort to explore motivations and relationships: An effort to add depth.

I am not suggesting that this is for what the venue of Superman was created. I am suggesting this is the venue of movies. The initial Christopher Reeve version of Superman--perhaps rightly held as the successful epitome of such efforts--was engaging as a story. Beyond that, it had one major goal: To make us believe that a man could fly (it was even marketed using that very phrase). Special effects have since become so commonplace that we are now well past that hurdle. Now we need to believe more than just that a man can fly. I think Superman Returns delivers the "more" that we want.

Yes, I missed the "American way" spiel, but in context of the film, that hardly even deserves comment. Brandon Routh's Superman zipped around the planet but the landscape of the movie was decidedly American in nearly every respect. And while I liked Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor, his portrayal was not nearly so sinister as Kevin Spacey's version--which, I personally think--is much closer to the evil of the comic book Luthor.

And speaking of that foe in regard to plots: There really is only one way to defeat Superman and only one way to dramatically portray his involvement in a plot. You bring down Superman only with a rock from his home planet and you create obstacles necessitating a rescue by Superman only by involving the deaths of millions through the destruction of landmasses on a global scale. Similar plots are unavoidable. (Granted, even more unavoidable when involving movie characters used before.) Taking that into consideration, what else is there to expect?

the Lois Lane/Superman son issue… Well, it was an interesting touch, but might have been better as an unanswered question. My Superman mythology is pretty rusty, but I think part of Superman's power is derived from the differences between Earth and his home world. That said, I should think that any Earthly son of the Man of Steel would be human in most regards (but this is just speculation upon my part).

At any rate, I found Superman Returns to be an excellent popcorn movie and I left feeling entertained when I had expected to be disappointed. It is a decently acted movie with excellent visuals and an unexpected introspective look at a long known icon. I attribute that to good writing. I hope the movie can overcome the box office competition and offer the opportunity of at least one more heroic motion picture effort.

Posted at 3:59PM on Jul 12th 2006 by DL Tolleson

63. Honestly, this movie will top out at $180M (at the end of this weekend it will be at $160M, the following weekend $170M, the weekend after that $170M and then $175M, $177M, etc).

This movie was a let down and warning that CGI effects alone do not make a good movie. There simply wasn't enough story and at the heart, superman is essentially a boring character. Stick with Spiderman

Posted at 4:03PM on Jul 12th 2006 by Pete

64. I think that they should jettison Brandon Routh for Jean Claude Van Damme, and have Lois Lane played by Grace Jones from Conan the Destroyer. That way they could do it real cheap, maybe shoot it in Vancouver, but they'd probably have to lose Singer- but I'm sure they could get that guy Pitof, who directed Catwoman, for cheap. How about Superman has to find a Volkswagen Beetle who has been posessed by the spirit of Adolf Hitler, and who keeps trying to run over people in the gay district of Metropolis? Or find out which employee of the Daily Planet is actually Ku Klux Klanman, and who keeps leaving burning crosses in Perry's office? Shucks- that'd never work- they're really bad ideas. We might lose the redneck demographic.

Posted at 4:12PM on Jul 12th 2006 by Jim

65. Superman Returns will not pass $190M. Trends lead to somewhere around $185M.

The movie is a warning to those who fail to make the 'complete' movie- combination of effects, enterainment, acting, story and emotion.

this one was missing enough story.

Posted at 4:14PM on Jul 12th 2006 by Peter

66. Superman Returns was better than I expected. I agree that Lois wasn't Lois in this movie, but it fits the storyline. I think she would have reacted a little differently though. The kid is a nice touch. It gives it a happy ending- a hope for the future and, of course, a reason for a sequal. Overall it was pretty good. I hope they do make a sequal. A sort of "Superboy" , but without the super dog.

Posted at 4:15PM on Jul 12th 2006 by Becky

67. It's time Hollywood stepped up to the plate with a cecent script and tried something daring with a Superman script involving JLA, Brainiac or something more familiar in the lore of comics and forget trying to solve today's issues like nuclear war, global warming, etc... It's the fantesy of the movie I'm more interested in than solving the crap that's currently around. Or evan a better X4 script with a Sentinle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted at 4:36PM on Jul 12th 2006 by ibdribbles

68. I think 'Superman Returns ' was alright, but if they really want people to see the sequel they have to bring back the 3 Villains from Krypton or include two additional super heroes with guest appearance in the movie. There are tons of peopel in the movie industry who got talent in special effects.

Posted at 4:38PM on Jul 12th 2006 by andy

69. Ok when the man of steel needs to be in a hospital bed,it is time to leave the theater.Dam you singer!singer acted like this was his new baby and i feel like his visionwere he night of thought was good, was crappy,and know one wanted to speak up and say"hey that doesnt sound right""hey lois shouldn't be to bitchy"or "so, superman is holding up a little island that is full of kryptonite?"The whole kid subplot was dumb#1 lois looks loose#2 are they saying its ok to lie to the man your married about your love child#3 it makes you think different about the wonderful women clark thinks lois is#4and it makes superman look stupid to love a girl who is liying to you about your son!
After that routh did a ok job ,but it seemed he was trying to play christopher reeves more than superman but,who can blame him he was superman.lex's hench men "kumar" did a interview with wizard saying he had a big role..ummm..no..you get to kick superman a few times.Lex was good but i had no doubt in spacey.SO look were we are now,still haven't made profit yet.And you almost ruined a franchise.Singer did a good job with x men then he jumped ship to do somthing more iconic .See what greed gets ya?should of stayed with your contract. i am all about marvel but i do love superman.He should man up for his mistake of leaving x men and making superman a disaster.

Let's vote on a redue like there doin with hulk.huh?
NO SINGER,NO BOSWORTH maybe some parts from kevin smiths script i read it had brainiac and doomsday with luther
now that is the superman we love!

It is funny i heard singer was going to by himself action comics #1 ,because of this huge part of his life .After this movie i would save money.Your future in directing looks blurry.

i am going to go watch some smallville

Posted at 4:44PM on Jul 12th 2006 by ERn

70. Bosworth as lois lane = bad move.

Posted at 5:12PM on Jul 12th 2006 by Brittany

71. I think Superman isnt doing aswell as it should is because it came out a week before pirates 2 which is unfortunate because the reason pirates is doing so well is because little teenage bimboswith too much time on their hands go watch the film multiple times to see poor actors like Orlando Bloom and Johnny Depp. Pirates 2 really sucked Superman is a much better film and anyone who doesnt think so hasnt seeen it.

Posted at 5:14PM on Jul 12th 2006 by Roman

72. I thought Brandon was very good. True, it was a darker Superman in whole, but that seemed more of a reflection of our times. I recently saw Superman II, and while they were great, it seemed very corny and dated.
I hope they decide to give this Superman cast another try.

Posted at 5:33PM on Jul 12th 2006 by Amanda

73. I saw it and while Pirates was not as good as the original to me, I found it a lot more entertaining and easy to sit through than Superman. The cast (other than Bosworth who was horribly miscast from the get-go) wasn't the issue. The script and the holes in the plot were, along with the movie being at least 20 mins too long. Several movies have suffered from being too long (Cars, Pirates) but Superman had too many other problems to overcome it. That and a very odd marketing plan didn't help either. It is disappointing to me as a huge Green Lantern fan because DC box office disappointments will not increase the odds of a GL movie being made anytime soon.

Posted at 5:46PM on Jul 12th 2006 by Mark

74. "11. Routh was great, hope he'll be back. They need to recast Lois Lane .....", make this whole story Clark's nightmare (get rid of the kid!!) and bring on braniac. Bring aboard a comic book writer as a consultant, somebody who understands Superman instead of turning the character in to a dull alienated greek god (which he isn't) with girl problems.

And to the person who said this movie was joyless, you hit the nail on the head.

Who wants to see Superman mope after Lois Lane, Lois engaged to Cyclops with a child whose paternity is in question? We've got Maury and Montel for those kinds of situations.

"Superman, You ARE the father!"
Posted at 10:43AM on Jul 11th 2006 by Jane

JANe you are right !!! so right..

NICE comments PEOPLE THE PROBLEM is that the story was not has good has the special effect ...That is why is was a mediocre hit ..but a hit...

SOlution READ the Comic again Brian singer!!! PLEASE no more remake ...how about something original......Sad !! this movie need a sequel so I can take out the bad taste out of my mind....

you can do it BRIAN singer !!! don't let hollywood write the story...please...

Posted at 5:59PM on Jul 12th 2006 by SUPERMANFAN

75. The failure of the new Superman Movie, lies in the fact that it did not have an interesting plot. This could have been a made for TV movie instead. The movie should have been more suspensuful and Superman should have actually been more aggressive since he has returned to Earth. For example in the scene where he is being shot with a full automatic machine gun, you would think that he would be wrapping the machine around the the criminal. Instead, they change scenes to something else. The movie was not as beleiveable as the first two done with Christopher Reeves.

Posted at 6:05PM on Jul 12th 2006 by Med Ellin