Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?
BSinger meant for SR to be some sort of sequel to SII. He is the one who says it takes place 5 years after SII. I am positive I have read this quote from him. I'll try to find it.
My point is saying it's a stand alone is not true because the director meant for it to be tied to SII and STM. The director himself deliberately wanted the movie to be seen this way. Sure it can be viewed as a stand-alone, but that's not how BSinger wanted it to be seen.
The problem I see is Singer picked and discarded certain elements from SII to fit his story instead of making it an outright sequel. This is confusing to the audience who are familiar with SII. I'm sure he realizes in hindsight that was a bad idea.
Still even if it was meant to be a stand alone and not a loosely tied sequel. I have problems with Supes having relations with Lois without telling her that he's ClarK Kent. The idea in and of itself is CREEPY, which is not a trait I normally associate with Superman. Add in the fact, he ups and leaves without saying a word to her makes Superman an even bigger jerk, which is another trait I don't associate with Superman.
Originally Posted by Rowsdower!
I've heard so many people talk about how Superman would kill Lois if they ever had sex, but I've never heard someone make this point before and it's brilliant. If Superman's bodily fluids are so dangerous, then he'd have to use a kryptonite toilet every time he takes a dump.
Last edited by charl_huntress; 09-13-2012 at 12:13 PM.