How do the Christopher Reeves "Superman" movies hold up to more modern comic book movies?

[Jax]

Of course not. There was more to it than that. But the decision not to use the theme was symbolic of how Snyder just doesn't get it. If not that theme, then a theme that is equally uplifting. The problem was that the script itself didn't really lend itself toward the theme, because it was such a downer.

This version of Superman is not a symbol of truth, justice and the American way. He does not represent hope, or inspire anyone. Even when he saves a life, he looks like it's a burden, not his calling. Snyder got pretty much nothing right.

Yes lets keep Superman the same, they tried that with Returns and it was a box office dud. I personally enjoyed the gritty tone and I have 0% interest in watching a cheesy Superman movie in 2013 when MoS came out or in the future. Superman saves the entire world and embraces who he is and what his destiny is, how is that not uplifting?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yes lets keep Superman the same, they tried that with Returns and it was a box office dud. I personally enjoyed the gritty tone and I have 0% interest in watching a cheesy Superman movie in 2013 when MoS came out or in the future. Superman saves the entire world and embraces who he is and what his destiny is, how is that not uplifting?

It was the sixth highest grossing film domestically in 2006 and the ninth highest worldwide. It made almost 400 million dollars. And seems to be well reviewed. Is that a dud?

 

[Jayson1]

Yes lets keep Superman the same, they tried that with Returns and it was a box office dud. I personally enjoyed the gritty tone and I have 0% interest in watching a cheesy Superman movie in 2013 when MoS came out or in the future.

Superman Returns didn't work out but I would say "Smallville" and "Supergirl" have captured the character or in the case of "Supergirl" a female version of the character in away that felt modern but also true to the spirit of the character. Trying to stay true to the core of the character doesn't mean you can't update stuff you just have to know your limits. Superman is never going to be Batman no matter how much people try and force him into being that type of hero. I mean you can try but it doesn't really work well IMO.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

It was the sixth highest grossing film domestically in 2006 and the ninth highest worldwide. It made almost 400 million dollars. And seems to be well reviewed. Is that a dud?

To be be fair a Superman movie staring Pauly Shore with a 100 dollar budget would have made that money. Superhero movie's, especially one with the Superman character in it, will always be a big money breaker. Profit is never a good indicator as to whether a movie is good or not.
Jason

 

[Nerys Myk]

To be be fair a Superman movie staring Pauly Shore with a 100 dollar budget would have made that money. Superhero movie's, especially one with the Superman character in it, will always be a big money breaker. Profit is never a good indicator as to whether a movie is good or not.
Jason

Didn't say it was good or bad, just that it wasn't a box office dud. Even, the guy in charge of WB at the time said is was a successful film.

 

[Jax]

It was the sixth highest grossing film domestically in 2006 and the ninth highest worldwide. It made almost 400 million dollars. And seems to be well reviewed. Is that a dud?

$391 Million (the studio doesn't get anywhere near that total back) from a $270 million Budget (not including Advertising)...It was a big dud for WB, there was a reason they didn't do a sequel.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Not performing to hopes or expectations is not the same as a dud.

 

[Jayson1]

Didn't say it was good or bad, just that it wasn't a box office dud. Even, the guy in charge of WB at the time said is was a successful film.

That's true. "Batman vs Superman" and "Suicide Squad" were also money makers. Despite this you get the feeling that they are not just content to take the money and run. My impression is that are listening to fans complaints and are trying to address them which makes me wonder what they are going to do with the Superman character in the future. Stay with the gritty and try and make it work or try and do a more hopeful film in the future. You could see them even try to combine both of those idea's into film.

Jason

 

[Tosk]

$391 Million (the studio doesn't get anywhere near that total back) from a $270 million Budget (not including Advertising)...It was a big dud for WB, there was a reason they didn't do a sequel.

And it's completely their own fault. The budget wasn't just for the film, it was also for all the aborted material from the previous few Superman attempts, including the pay-or-play contract for Burton.

 

[Jax]

Yeh I was always a little thrown off with that budget, especially back in 2006. A quick google tells me it was $200-205 million, so even then I don't think it would of gotten a sequel but the extra baggage clearly didn't help.

Not performing to hopes or expectations is not the same as a dud.

Dud
* Not meeting standards
* a thing that fails or is unsatisfactory.

It clearly didn't meet the minimum standards or expectations the WB wanted or they would of given it a sequel. I think Superman Returns is a decent film (better than the Original film though behind the sequel) but it's very clear WB were unsatisfied with the Box Office takings.

That's true. "Batman vs Superman" and "Suicide Squad" were also money makers. Despite this you get the feeling that they are not just content to take the money and run

While am sure WB exec's would love to have critical acclaimed movies that make money, their first motive is $$$. I think WB were way over confident on how easy it was going to be and they rushed the DCEU. I think MoS is superb and I like BvS overall but dam SS was underwhelming. I still have hopes for WW & JL though and the DCEU at large.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeh I was always a little thrown off with that budget, especially back in 2006. A quick google tells me it was $200-205 million, so even then I don't think it would of gotten a sequel but the extra baggage clearly didn't help.



Dud
* Not meeting standards
* a thing that fails or is unsatisfactory.

It clearly didn't meet the minimum standards or expectations the WB wanted or they would of given it a sequel. I think Superman Returns is a decent film (better than the Original film though behind the sequel) but it's very clear WB were unsatisfied with the Box Office takings.

Assuming that we can conflate the idea of "standards" with "expectations," which we can't.

And the idea that a direct sequel wasn't green-lit because the film itself was a failure is wrong-headed. The decision could have simply been that taking the money that would have been required to actually make a sequel and investing it in other ways was more likely to yield a better overall return. None of that translates into the black-or-white, all-or-nothing idea that SR was a failure. There are more than two points on the goddamned spectrum. Underperforming relative to expectations, assuming that's even what happened by the way, is not synonymous with failing, being a dud, bombing, or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Jax]

 

[Skipper]

In The Godfather, Puzo spent like a hundred pages talking about Lucy Mancini's huge vagina and how it was wrecked by Sonny's huge Sicilian cock and she needed surgery in order to enjoy sex again, let's not put the man on a pedestal.

As far I know, very little of the original Puzo's screenplay remained in the movie.

 

[Kirk Prime]

Yes lets keep Superman the same, they tried that with Returns and it was a box office dud. I personally enjoyed the gritty tone and I have 0% interest in watching a cheesy Superman movie in 2013 when MoS came out or in the future. Superman saves the entire world and embraces who he is and what his destiny is, how is that not uplifting?

That's absolutely false. Superman Returns was NOT the same. It was a weak homage. But Reeve's Superman was never a stalker, or a weak wimp. That was Singer's version.

The only thing Superman Returns got right was the music. Superman was just as out of character there, just in a different way. That's nice that you personally enjoyed the dark, brooding character that Snyder put on camera. But it wasn't Superman.

Captain America is very similar to Superman in many ways, and Cap's movies connected with the audience just fine. The 1996 cartoon version of Superman was terrific. Superman has had plenty of success on television.

By the way, I'm not sure where you are getting your figures, but Superman Returns grossed $391 million internationally. That's not a box office dud in 2006. It was the 6th highest domestic grossing film of 2006. And it wasn't even a good movie.

By your definition of a dud, so was Man of Steel and BvS. Both did not reach expectations.

Superman Returns just wasn't a good movie. It was poorly written, poorly cast, and poorly done. That doesn't mean Superman should become Batman.

 

[Tosk]

or a weak wimp

Except in Superman II when he took a beating at the diner.

 

[Kirk Prime]

He had no powers at the time. He also was not weak nor a wimp there. He stood up for himself and Lois against a bully. He was outmatched and not used to his new reality. He was also sucker punched.

Not exactly the same thing.

He also, after that beating, walked who knows how many miles, back to the friggin North Pole, in frigid temperatures, managed to get his powers back, and took on 3 people, just as powerful as him, alone, and won.

Pretty good movie for Clark.

 

[Amaris]

Bob Chipman sums up my thoughts on Superman in his entry for that film on Really That Good.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Thanks for linking this guy, @Sci. His reviews are really interesting. I started with Superman, and had watched 3 others before I realized two hours had passed.

 

[Mudd]

That's absolutely false. Superman Returns was NOT the same.

Yes, it pretty much was. It was a better-made movie than most of the Reeve outings, as well.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Returns was a disappointment, but I'm glad Routh found work in the DCU still. He makes a great Ray Palmer.

I imagine Superman The Movie would be a modest hit by today's standards. The whimsical fairy tale and "will they, won't romance" of Clark and Lois being what most people remember about Superman TM.

Looking back on it, Luthor, Otis and Miss Tesmacher really do feel like they belong in another movie.

One thing I do like about Superman TM and the DCEU movies, is they don't waste time delving into Superman and Lois' relationship. I know TPTB want more go get'em action and that's what audiences expect, but more of this (see below) would be nice.

 

[Kirk Prime]

Yes, it pretty much was. It was a better-made movie than most of the Reeve outings, as well.

It's a shame you don't see the difference, but it's not a coincidence that Reeve's first two movies are positively viewed and remembered, and Routh's movie is all but forgotten. They were nothing alike. Superman is not a wimp. He's not a stalker. He's not someone that would take 6 years of his life to do a lap around the universe. He's not a coward who would be afraid to talk to Lois. He made a promise in Superman II never to leave the Earth alone again, so the idea that he would break that promise for no reason also makes no sense. He would never be a deadbeat dad.

The decision to give Lois a kid--terrible. And the movie was just boring with the exception of saving the plane.

Routh for me, was not a good Superman, though I do agree he is doing good work as Ray Palmer.