Originally Posted by mikey1974
that said... it's not the Superman we knew and loved. my biggest issue is,after Superman II, which this is meant to be a sequel to,Superman learned that humanity needs him,and he learned the painful lessons that went with abandoning his mission as Earth's protector and role model to satisfy his own wants and desires.
so what are we told in SR? that he goes and f$%king does it AGAIN!
Thing is… SR
works just fine as a “stand alone.” True, the film might assume knowledge of the basic Superman mythology and tropes. But no “homework” (in the form of seeing a prior film) is actually necessary. (And this is a different circumstance than a true/proper sequel - like Jedi
is to Empire
- where knowledge of both films is implicit.)
Consider the scenario where a critic takes the trouble to innumerate all the alleged “continuity issues” between SR
. Now, that might be fair under a prior consensus
that the former is the proper sequel to the latter. But all those “issues” become moot the moment someone says “Dude, I’ve never seen SII
and have no desire to.” In other words, the “continuity criticism” only has traction if a different, 30 year-old film is taken into account - but makes no sense if it isn’t.
Ideally, compelling criticism shouldn’t have to rely on such a contentious foundation. It should be just as convincing irrespective of whether the reader of the criticism has - or has not - seen/remembered a prior movie.