This has to be one of the worst comic-book superhero adaptations since Batman and Robin. At least Batman and Robin had more villains. This movie, unlike, Batman Begins and X-Men III, (Another poor adaptation but certainly better than this.) was geared towards children. There is very little real violence other than a gatling gun and Superman taking a highly improbable beating by Lex Luthor. Let's be honest, most of the time Superman isn't up against a non-powered Supervillain and there are usually a few more subplots to consider when dealing with your average Superman comic or recent cartoon. That said, others have been ignoring plot points in their reviews just stating that there are some. It's apparent that real people such as Sci-Fi/Comics fans should have been polled to see what plot holes are there. Unfortunately, it didn't really happen. So that said, I'd like to focus on a few of the more egregious ones ...
If you know Luthor's history you would know he's always got an arsenal on standby somewhere with him at all times in case "Big Blue" shows up. That said, he's also smart enough to have amassed more of a fortune than he has here. Again, perhaps some real experts should have been consulted about the plot in this movie. I have a hard time seeing Kevin as Luthor in this movie. I guess I'm used to Clancy Brown's smooth talking cartoon Luthor going toe to toe with Superman while in a Kryptonite powered battle suit. That's the real Lex Luthor. Then we have Kevin Spacey's smarmy pratt spearing Supes with a Kryptonite crystal from behind. Where are the kryptonite bullets? The kryptonite energy beams? OK, Kevin had a Kryptonite city to work with. It was cool. But what about for himself? Just a few crystals? Not even a big kryptonite stalagmite? Enough said.
Yes, Lois and Clark was a big hit in the 90's. It was geared for a TV audience and was basically a crime show in tights. I enjoyed it immensely, but it is what it is. The reality is more like Larry Niven's classic essay, "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex." I won't elaborate further but it sums up neatly the impossibility of a real relationship between the two short of the events of Superman II happening. The 90's comics featured the Superman Red/Blue storyline which had Clark able to turn human or into a Kryptonian energy being. That's the only point in the comics where such a relationship could have ever really worked. Here it's a bit far-fetched given the issues involved. But if it worked for the "Da Vinci Code" ...
Yes, Superman is a very violent character in a mega-violent universe. That said there is one tenet that Superman lives by. A tenet that he holds inviolate. Superman doesn't kill. This also applies to the extended Superman family. They don't kill. In this movie they ignore that tenet. We don't actually see the death but it's clear someone died and Superman is partially responsible. It's a minor plot point in any other genre but in the Superman mythos it's a huge faux pas. Superman doesn't kill, period. Here, it's for effect and no other reason.
How do we fix all this? 1. Several real villains show up. Brainiac and/or Mr. Mxyzptlk would be top choices followed by several others including General Zod, Kancer, Prankster, Toyman, Mongul, Darkseid, Bizarro, Solomon Grundy, or maybe even Amazo. Let's not forget Doomsday, the Cyborg or even Metallo in full heavy metal gear. Throw a few of these at Supes and see how bad he is then.
2. And if there's more than one villain you must remember that Superman isn't the only hero out there. Superman Vs. Batman? Nonsense. You need the Justice League. Make the next Superman the introduction to the Justice League. Have a real crisis with more than one super-villain. This is the DC Universe. They have more plot lines and villains than anyone. The cartoons of the past 15 years have really made everyone aware of how creative and interesting the DC Universe can be. It's time for more than just individual efforts. Maybe the Justice Society invites Superman to join. There are many ways to incorporate the idea. Just let it be something more interesting than catching another jet plane and gently setting it down.
3. Lois isn't Superman's only rival for attention in his off-hours. There could be a Maxima or Lana Lang in town to try and see what Kal-El is up to these days. On the family front there could even be a Supergirl who yearns for his approval and who desperately needs insight and training. Heck, even Krypto would make for an interesting subplot.
4. Jimmy is little more than a brief but irritating footnote. He could be a topnotch reporter after 5 years on the beat. He could have a portfolio he's trying to sell to a photo gallery. Why keep him still practically a teenager 5 years later and totally uninvolved with Clark's private life? He's Clark's best friend, too. Turtle Boy anyone?
If you know Luthor's history you would know he's always got an arsenal on standby somewhere with him at all times in case "Big Blue" shows up. That said, he's also smart enough to have amassed more of a fortune than he has here. Again, perhaps some real experts should have been consulted about the plot in this movie. I have a hard time seeing Kevin as Luthor in this movie. I guess I'm used to Clancy Brown's smooth talking cartoon Luthor going toe to toe with Superman while in a Kryptonite powered battle suit. That's the real Lex Luthor. Then we have Kevin Spacey's smarmy pratt spearing Supes with a Kryptonite crystal from behind. Where are the kryptonite bullets? The kryptonite energy beams? OK, Kevin had a Kryptonite city to work with. It was cool. But what about for himself? Just a few crystals? Not even a big kryptonite stalagmite? Enough said.
Yes, Lois and Clark was a big hit in the 90's. It was geared for a TV audience and was basically a crime show in tights. I enjoyed it immensely, but it is what it is. The reality is more like Larry Niven's classic essay, "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex." I won't elaborate further but it sums up neatly the impossibility of a real relationship between the two short of the events of Superman II happening. The 90's comics featured the Superman Red/Blue storyline which had Clark able to turn human or into a Kryptonian energy being. That's the only point in the comics where such a relationship could have ever really worked. Here it's a bit far-fetched given the issues involved. But if it worked for the "Da Vinci Code" ...
Yes, Superman is a very violent character in a mega-violent universe. That said there is one tenet that Superman lives by. A tenet that he holds inviolate. Superman doesn't kill. This also applies to the extended Superman family. They don't kill. In this movie they ignore that tenet. We don't actually see the death but it's clear someone died and Superman is partially responsible. It's a minor plot point in any other genre but in the Superman mythos it's a huge faux pas. Superman doesn't kill, period. Here, it's for effect and no other reason.
How do we fix all this? 1. Several real villains show up. Brainiac and/or Mr. Mxyzptlk would be top choices followed by several others including General Zod, Kancer, Prankster, Toyman, Mongul, Darkseid, Bizarro, Solomon Grundy, or maybe even Amazo. Let's not forget Doomsday, the Cyborg or even Metallo in full heavy metal gear. Throw a few of these at Supes and see how bad he is then.
2. And if there's more than one villain you must remember that Superman isn't the only hero out there. Superman Vs. Batman? Nonsense. You need the Justice League. Make the next Superman the introduction to the Justice League. Have a real crisis with more than one super-villain. This is the DC Universe. They have more plot lines and villains than anyone. The cartoons of the past 15 years have really made everyone aware of how creative and interesting the DC Universe can be. It's time for more than just individual efforts. Maybe the Justice Society invites Superman to join. There are many ways to incorporate the idea. Just let it be something more interesting than catching another jet plane and gently setting it down.
3. Lois isn't Superman's only rival for attention in his off-hours. There could be a Maxima or Lana Lang in town to try and see what Kal-El is up to these days. On the family front there could even be a Supergirl who yearns for his approval and who desperately needs insight and training. Heck, even Krypto would make for an interesting subplot.
4. Jimmy is little more than a brief but irritating footnote. He could be a topnotch reporter after 5 years on the beat. He could have a portfolio he's trying to sell to a photo gallery. Why keep him still practically a teenager 5 years later and totally uninvolved with Clark's private life? He's Clark's best friend, too. Turtle Boy anyone?