As bad "Superman Returns" is...

How do you explain the multiple nominations & wins that the film receive from a number of film based awards, ones such as the "Academy Awards", the "Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films", the "BAFTA Awards", the "Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards", the "Teen Choice Awards" and even more understandable the "Razzie Awards"?

I mean hows does a film like "Superman Returns" (Inspite of receiving a few several good raves from critics & viewers) that has been look down and even despised by so many including viewers & fans alike (Myself included) was able to earn so many award nominations and actually win some of those award nominations? It even was nominated for an Oscar and only had one nomination for the "Razzie Awards".

The only possible & logical explanation for this is that since SR was release about 19 years after "Superman IV: The Quest For Peace" people seem to give it some slack and even give it the amount of credibility that it doesn't even deserve regardless how mediocre the film naturally is, in other words... People accept any Superman film being done after almost two decades despite of it's flaws, major ones.

But somehow I have a feeling that there's more to it than that!

Easy answer:

Prior to 'Singerman' and "Valkrappy', Bryan Singer had a reputation for making quality films.

Case closed.

How the hell did I ever miss this?

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:How do you explain the multiple nominations & wins that the film receive from a number of film based awards, ones such as the "Academy Awards",

Nominated but lost to Pirates. Why did it even get nominated? My theory is that it was Hollywood's way of telling the effects houses that nobody blames them for Singerman's horrid effects as Singer was barely around to review/approve shots, hence many of them being PS2-grade even though those companies had done previously and have done subsequently much better work. Even so, the finished products are what they are and there's NOTHING in Singerman that can stack up to the CG Davey Jones from Pirates 2. The first ten minutes of Man of Steel probably have more sophisticated, more artistic, higher quality and generally MORE visual effects shots than anything from Singerman.

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:"BAFTA Awards"

Ibid, and for likely the same reasons.

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:"Teen Choice Awards"

Routh/Bosworth lost for "choice chemistry", the movie lost for "Choice Summer Movie: Drama/Action-Adventure" and "Movies - Choice Action Adventure" (what the fuck the difference is supposed to be is beyond me), Routh wasn't even fucking nominated for "choice actor- action", he lost for "choice breakout" and "choice rumble", ditto Bosworth in her "choice actor" category and Spacey in his and so on. In fact, as I review the list, I don't see where Singerman won jack fucking shit at the TCA's. And that's likely in spite of the best efforts of the Apologists as this is open to votes from the public and you can vote more than once if you'd like.

Apologists play the TCA card to this day and ALWAYS mention that it's "voted on by the fans" but conveniently forget to mention that apparently Pirates 2 had a shitload more fans. How sad is it that they couldn't even manage to rig the system on an awards ceremony 99% of people have never heard of and don't give a shit about?

As many have suggested, critics ate this one up because of the film's hard on for Donner. Nostalgia can really delude one. I remember thinking during the title sequence that this might actually be something special.

James Stocks wrote:As many have suggested, critics ate this one up because of the film's hard on for Donner. Nostalgia can really delude one. I remember thinking during the title sequence that this might actually be something special.

I noticed that too at that 10 PM showing back in 2006. It started off with that 'disclaimer' about what had happened to Superman & then.....cue.....John Williams theme march.......full-blown Williams theme. From what I remember it really got those psyched in the theater at that time. Too bad it failed immediately afterward.

^ That sensation is one reason I eventually sympathized for the core fans who felt betrayed by The Phantom Menace. The same phenomenon happened to them.

Of course, we got Man of Steel and they got pretty much nothing but, hey, sympathy!

A lot of apologists lately have been tossing around this link http://www.avclub.com/articles/what-the-muchmaligned-superman-returns-got-right,99469/ The very first comment pretty much calls on their bullshit, pointing out how they've been jumping on MOS too much, and this SR article telling of where these writers stand. I've never really followed their site, but at another forum it's very popular among users. After reading that article, it only discourages me further from following the site.

I've seen that article but I ultimately am not persuaded by it. The story and character elements of Singerman are what they are. But I figured there was a chance I might be able to take a slightly more balanced view of Singerman after I'd gotten into MOS. Bygones, right?

Well, no. Not really. Singerman only has a couple of minor action beats and through the ones I've seen, rather than taking a more ecumenical line (as I thought I might be able to do), I'm now stuck in fantasy land and dreaming of how Snyder would've handled those sequences. Singerman re-energizing in the sun, blasting heat vision through clouds, diving into the ocean, tunneling underneath the ocean floor, all of that shit made me ache to see what Snyder would've done. Ditto other special effects stuff in the movie.

I'll never be able to accept Singerman as a story but I now realize I will never be able to accept even the half-hearted action bits we got. It simply doesn't work. And even now, that kind of pains me. If nothing else, it raises the question of what Snyder might've accomplished with an extra $50 million at his disposal.

I remember back in 2007 when 300 came out and made a huge splash on its opening weekend, that many credited Snyder and what a big contrast it was to how SR performed (Superman being outdone by an adaptation of a lesser known comic book, and being rated R, really says a lot). As early as that, Snyder already had many saying he would be a better Superman director. I'm glad it actually happened.

James Stocks wrote:I remember back in 2007 when 300 came out and made a huge splash on its opening weekend, that many credited Snyder and what a big contrast it was to how SR performed (Superman being outdone by an adaptation of a lesser known comic book, and being rated R, really says a lot). As early as that, Snyder already had many saying he would be a better Superman director. I'm glad it actually happened.

It's funny how prescient the fans were looking back at it. Cavill's name was on a lot of wishlists for years. As for me, I ruled Snyder out only because I figured he'd eventually start worrying about being typecast as the guy who can only do remakes and adaptations. But he doesn't seem interested in shrugging that off. Except for that, I would've championed him long ago (and my record actually bears that out).

Of course, a lot of people wanted Kevin Spacey to be Lex before Singerman and look how that turned out.

Something I often forget about concerning the screen-tests: Keri Russell as Lois Lane. As far as I know, she was never up for the role, only playing it during screentests focused on Clark Kent/Superman, sort of like how Harrison Ford stood in for Han Solo in screentests except Lucas actually liked him enough to hire him when he saw how he fit like a glove. Sadly, it doesn't look like we'll ever see how Keri Russell did in those screentests as WB dubbed her over with Bosworth's dialogue, probably for legal reasons. But I keep thinking she would have been a much better fit for Lois. She was more age appropriate, only three years older than Routh (like Kidder over Reeve), and she looked like someone who could be a journalist up for a Pulitzer Prize, compared to Bosworth, whether anyone thought she was good or not, can't deny that she looked way too young to be believable in the role.

Of course, she would still have to deal with the terrible writing of how Lois came off throughout the flick, so it might have been even worse to see someone who would actually make a great Lois Lane deal with bad material to work with. Your thoughts?

You can slap lipstick on a Stargazer.

Doesn't make her Amy Adams.