Originally Posted by Know One
I will agree that if they'd made the film shorter they could have invested the money (because time = money) into more credible or more iconic stuff. For example saving the kid from the river was not very moving - as compared to Reeve saving the kid at Niagara Falls. But I am comparing oranges to tomatoes because of budget constraints.
I guess we could say they were over-ambitious? Maybe they lacked funding at some point (then we could compare to SIV - lol).
I will say this though, I'm more happy that they have done this movie than if they hadn't done it.
Pls write back - it's very interesting to read your thoughts - promise - no sarcasm.
Yeah of course it's apples and oranges but I dont think there's ever an excuse for bad writing. I just thought there whole general idea was a bad one, it tried so hard to be like the Donnerverse and it failed miserably. It's really unfortunate but Superman is so hard to do without money, I think they'd have been better off just making a film about something else or a hero with less powers cause depose ring Superman was a really bad plot point, and it'd already been done in the Donnerverse with SII.