ROTTEN TOMATOES: Brandon Routh Talks Superman's Future Comments

Brandon Routh Talks Superman's Future

by | July 03, 2009

Summary

Whatever happens next for the "Superman" franchise, it appears that Brandon Routh won't be wearing that big "S" and cape -- in a new interview, he says his contract with Warner Bros. has expired. Back to Article

(1-20 of 98 posts) | Reply

BUCK69 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 05:45 AM

Anyone who knows anything about my opinion on this knows that I think SR was a damn good movie [I'll state right up front that I'm not going to engage in a rehash of the movie's merits], although I'll admit it might have been too character driven and lacked enough conflict and action for some people. But nonetheless, I think that both Routh and Singer should be given a chance to improve on the foundation that they laid with SR. Routh makes a good point about Batman Begins. Although most critics liked the movie, it wasn't a huge blockbuster. Nearly everyone universally agrees the sequel was better, and a major improvement. A follow-up to SR could follow that trend.

(Reply to this)

De4ective Detectiv3 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 05:48 AM

How lame, personally, I'm kind of sick of the whole studio system. Its no wonder they didn't make any money off Superman Returns, they somehow managed to spend nearly 270million filming it!(according to Box Office Mojo) Don't get me wrong, I thought it was an awesome movie, but spending 270 million dollars on any film is just a gamble, especially considering that the movie went on to gross only 390million internationally.

I remember the days when James Cameron was the first director to break the 100million mark w/ Titanic. His new film, Avatar, is said to cost almost 300million. Where will the gluttony of Hollywood end?

(Reply to this)

De4ective Detectiv3 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 05:53 AM

@Buck69

Yeah, I actually thought Superman Returns was much better than Batman Begins. BB just didn't feel like it established the character well enough, there weren't enough iconic moments. It was pretty forgetable.

The only thing I didn't like about Superman Returns was the way they tried to bring his kid into it, to appeal to the younger audience. Other than that, it could have used some more action/Supe fighting bad guys.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Jul 03 2009 06:16 AM

Wasn't sure I was going to comment, but I needed to add my own 'WHathefu?!?!' moment when I hear people talking about 'Superman Returns' being better than 'Batman Begins.'

Not enough iconic moments? What about when he's doing his nightwatch moment, standing on the pillar of that sky-scraper while the orchestra broods? What about when he discovers the Bat cave? What about when he jury-rigs the first bat-signal? When he's 'torturing' Flass to get information and he roars 'SWEAR TO ME!' --no joke, some kid pissed himself in the theater in the row in front of me.

To each his own, but D@mn, man. I certainly didn't hate SR, but I can't even put it in the same dimension as BB.

Back on topic- I respect and trust Brian Singer, though I didn't particularly like Routh as Superman. The only lament I have is i'm just so godd@mned tired of 'reboots' and the whole culture of necessary excess- Seriously; Even if the movie cost 270 to make (according to Ctrl_), it netted 120 MILLION dollars!! HOW WAS THIS A FAILURE?!?!?

Now we have to sit through yet someone ELSE trying to create this whole thing. Just tired.

(Reply to this)

The D. writes:
on Jul 03 2009 06:30 AM

www.hollywoodreboot.com

August 2009

(Reply to this)

dewright23 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 06:58 AM

My problem with SR, and the original movies is with the portrayal of Lex Luthor. He is not comic relief, he is a serious villain. They need to introduce a different villain that can actually do some damage to Superman. And kill the kid off right at the beginning to really give Superman a reason to fight.

(Reply to this)

Kevin E. writes:
on Jul 03 2009 07:05 AM

In reply to this comment (#2520829)
I have to agree with Batman Begins being way better than Superman Returns. Of course I am a big Batman fan.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 03 2009 07:07 AM

In reply to this comment (#2520813)
Thing about Superman is the story actually requires that it be strongly character driven to be compelling. (Personally, I think the supposed distinction between 'character driven' and 'plot driven'confuses, by definition, what a story is and does)

Superman is this near invulnerable guy. When your hero is virtually indistructable, it becomes integral to make the conflict emotional in order to maintain a connection with the audience. If we can't fear for him, we'd better feel for him. Failing both, no one will give a sh.it what happens to him.

So I appreciate Singer's work on Superman Returns. It is, no question, a flawed film. But it remains aesthetically superior to both Transformers films, Spider-Man 3, and a host of other trashy regurgitations we've been offered in recent years. If Routh's out, then consider me out too.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jul 03 2009 07:11 AM

In reply to this comment (#2520838)
No truer words have ever been said. What's funny about WB is they make getting Lex right look easy on that hokey tv show while they seem to represent a blanket refusal to even attempt a sound interpretation of him in their movies. Strange...

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 03 2009 08:05 AM

In WB's defense there have only been two portrayals of Luthor in the last 30 years. Hackman and Spacey, and Spacey's was meant to be an homage to the earlier Hackman work. It's not like the character's Dracula who's really had multiple incarnations explored. I do agree though a move to the Machiavellien would be better for the character.

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 08:40 AM

Glad WB is going for a revision of the Superman story. There was too much wrong with "Superman Returns" to fix. Brandon Routh wasn't one of those things but sometimes the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. "Batman Returns" was a far superior movie. The reason "Batman Begins" didn't do as well at the box-office was because people still remembered the debacle that was "Batman and Robin" and were cautious about seeing another disaster.

"Superman Returns" was pretty far removed from the '80s movie series (which people still look back on fondly), therefore it was being released with positive name-recognition but an ultimately unremarkable plot/villain. While it didn't tank, it certainly didn't justify the effort. While there are "Superman Returns" defenders out there, few people are excited about the picture and can honestly claim it is all it could have been.

One chance is enough for Singer. He should go back and try to salvage the X-Men franchise with a fourth team movie.

(Reply to this)

JUDGE DREDD writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:17 AM

Well, IMO, Brandon Routh was great as Superman, better at Clark Kent though. He looks too much like Chris Reeves to waste him by not doing a sequel. Though what annoys me the most is by bringing the kid into it, a second reboot would be tricky without introducing him. I think the comics especially the ones drawn by Jim Lee, have the most awesome powerful mature Superman to date. In the wrong mindset Superman is a lethal weapon. This should be explored.

No more boring kryptonite lex luthor storyline. Make it fantastic like some of the comics. Put earth in real jeopardy, and lets see some hollywood cash spent on something more than a floating island and a plane crash.

I also think if they did rebootit again, SAM WORTHINGTON could make a great Man of Steel. He looks more like Jim Lee's Superman. Time to get gritty and Super!

(Reply to this)

JUDGE DREDD writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:18 AM

Well, IMO, Brandon Routh was great as Superman, better at Clark Kent though. He looks too much like Chris Reeves to waste him by not doing a sequel. Though what annoys me the most is by bringing the kid into it, a second reboot would be tricky without introducing him. I think the comics especially the ones drawn by Jim Lee, have the most awesome powerful mature Superman to date. In the wrong mindset Superman is a lethal weapon. This should be explored.

No more boring kryptonite lex luthor storyline. Make it fantastic like some of the comics. Put earth in real jeopardy, and lets see some hollywood cash spent on something more than a floating island and a plane crash.

I also think if they did rebootit again, SAM WORTHINGTON could make a great Man of Steel. He looks more like Jim Lee's Superman. Time to get gritty and Super!

(Reply to this)

ShoemakerFromHell writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:23 AM

I still am angry with Singer for leaving X-Men for SR. I would actually like to see a reboot of Superman not because I think the Donner films suck but if you want to make new Superman films, you have to start the story over again. No film has ever been great as a pseudo-sequel 20-30 years down the road. Wouldn't it be cool if they made a 6-10 hour saga of Superman? I mean, could you imagine the epic nature of it?

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:24 AM

In reply to this comment (#2520859)
I thought the plot and villain were fine for what they were, an homage to the earlier series which as you say people looked back on fondly. Could it have been more action packed yes, but that's what sequals are for. This movie did an excellent job of reintroducing the public to a character they hadn't seen on the big screen for 20 years. I don't see how you can say it wasn't worth the effort when it was positively received by critics and made by even the most conservative estimates 120 million dollars in profit. That's a bit of a headscrather for me, couple that with Singers filmography compared to any other comics director and his proven ability to produce an improved sequal and I can't see how WB justifies not giving these guys a chance to make that sequal.

(Reply to this)

ShoemakerFromHell writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:27 AM

I still am angry with Singer for leaving X-Men for SR. I would actually like to see a reboot of Superman not because I think the Donner films suck but if you want to make new Superman films, you have to start the story over again. No film has ever been great as a pseudo-sequel 20-30 years down the road. Wouldn't it be cool if they made a 6-10 hour saga of Superman? I mean, could you imagine the epic nature of it?

(Reply to this)

Glenn W. writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:27 AM

Routh was never the problem, the script was the problem. it really didn't give Superman much to do but lift heavy objects or find ways to display all his powers that everyone knows he has anyway. he doesn't even talk very much. the movie's about Superman and Superman only gets what amounts to a couple pages of dialogue, a good portion of which is just reused lines from the previous movies? are you kidding me?

i think SR's biggest problem was Singer's obsessive need to connect it to the first two Superman movies. if you watch SR again, you'll notice that it shares many story beats with the first film just with better special effects. Kal-El crashes on Earth, finds a job at the Daily Planet, saves Lois from a midair disaster, fights a land-grabbing Lex Luthor, lather, rinse, repeat. and the introduction of the kid felt like Singer trying to pound it into the audience's head, "Remember? Superman and Lois slept together in Superman II? Remember?!?" the script just felt redundant.

there's really no need to remind the audience of a story everyone's grandma knows by heart with a script that just rehashed **** from previous movies. "Last son of Krypton, raised on Earth, becomes Superman, disguises himself as a mild-mannered reporter"...we know already. we don't need it to be set up for us AGAIN. if the movie had just started with Lois and Clark at the Daily Planet, no one would have minded. but instead, they come up with this bullcrap scenario where Superman leaves the planet for five years and has to reintroduce himself to the world again with scenes and scenarios that mirror the first film. if Singer had actually tried to make the film stand on its own rather than relying so heavily on the first two movies, it could have been a lot better.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Jul 03 2009 09:31 AM

Superman Returns really didn't cost 270 million. Some of that budget includes the failed attempts to get the franchise off the ground- Tim Burton, Nic Cage, etc. So the actual budget for the film itself was a little over 200 million. I still wish they would let Singer make an awesome sequel which he can do and I liked Bradon Routh as Superman. I didn't think he got to do a whole lot in the role but he suited it fine.

(Reply to this)

ARTaylor writes:
on Jul 03 2009 10:05 AM

I love Superman Returns. It was enjoyable but definitely too similar to Superman '78. Particularly when it came to Luthor who, with Spacey's portrayal, should have been the more modern President/Businessman/behind-the-scenes villain that he is today. I thought Routh and Singer did a great job and want to see what they would do next.

(Reply to this)

DivineCC writes:
on Jul 03 2009 10:56 AM

The budget listed only includes what it took to make the actual film. That doesn't include promotional costs, print costs, etc. So the budget was much more than whats listed. Also, out of the $390 million it made in ticket sales, the studio doesn't get every dime of that. A large chunk goes to the theatres. So its very possible that the studio didn't make a whole lot on SR, even more possible since there hasn't been a sequel yet.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Superman Returns

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links