Originally Posted by Binker
Something that I hated SR for (along with other reasons) was a) they couldn't decide how much of the Reeve films was this film's backstory, thus creating problems and confusion, and b) they lied over what the film was about.
After the film was announced, Singer was on a radio show where he revealed that the Reeve films were being put into context; establishing Superman and that he had done heroic deeds before his disappearance. Those words would mean all four Superman films will in canon, but vague as in only the generalization of those films. For example, instead of everything that happened in Superman IV, maybe it would be only use the good parts like Superman becoming a global hero by removing the nukes. But later, they said Superman I & II was a vague history, which stayed until the film was being filmed where it was the only first film, and they stayed with the prequel comics they did. "Vague history" was already confusing already, and they should've been more clearer, but overall it was just confusing over what was canon and not in this film. To the point where when I or we had questions over how or what things happened or referenced, our explanations could only offer very little. The biggest was Lois and the if II was in canon; how long did the baby develop inside her womb until she realized she was pregnant? Isn't it funny that she realized that after she and Richard hooked up? Did she know already? Does she remember she and Superman having sex? Etc, etc, etc.
The other part of Singer and co. lying about the film. Here's what I mean: from the beginning until the release, we were told that SR was about Superman returning to a world that is different, much more dangerous, and above all like Lois, no longer needs him; shaping his story as someone trying to find his place in the world much like how he did from the beginning. Does that sound like the movie we got? Nope. SR was actually about Superman returning home, and while he is welcomed back with open arms by the world, he isn't by a very angry Lois, who wrote an article with that anger, and he is trying to find a place in HER world/life. What we were told was a lot more interesting versus what we got instead. So yeah, they lied to us.
P.S. given what was revealed over what SR2 was about, I'am glad MOS exists.
Oh yeah, I definitely hear ya on that.
I think that Singer and company not establishing and concrete timeline and history for the character shows that he really didn't want to touch anything that dealt with Superman's origins.
If anything, I feel like he was banking on the film being successful due to Superman's name alone and assuming that everyone, or mostly everyone had watched the Donner Films and were well versed with it.
And yeah, due to Singer not really establishing a concrete history for its core characters, it was hard to emphasize with the characters when it came to them contemplating on what they had lost, whether it be Superman and Lois's past relationship or how Lex felt wronged over Superman having placed him in jail. All of that was left up to the audience's imaginations.
And casting Kate Bosworth for a Lois that was supposed to be in her prime or even a little after that wasn't the best idea...at all.
Honestly, at the end of the day, Superman Returns didn't feel like a film where Superman was the main character. He was more or less just reacting to a lot of the stuff that happened in the film.
In some ways, it's more of a standalone story, where it has no past or future to go to. It's just a self-contained story.
Though I will say that in the same time, superman fans are in a way lucky that SR was made. Why? Well, it was because of Superman Returns that Warner Bros. was able to work out a deal with the Brando estate that allowed us to get the Richard Donner Cut of Superman 2, something that people thought that they would never see in their lifetime.
And if you were a fan of "Smallville", it allowed the show to bring in Lois and due to SR stalling the Superman franchise, it allowed the show to grow in ways where it wouldn't have been able to had we had a different or successful superman franchise going on at the same time.
Originally Posted by NeoRanger
The choice depends.
Superman Returns was technically the better movie (by far, in fact). Superman Returns had the better script. Man of Steel had the better actors, but Superman Returns utilized its cast a hell of a lot better. Which movie is more faithful to Superman's character and mythos? Neither and both.
I can't say that I really agree with that. I mean Superman Returns felt like Lois and Lex were its main characters, with superman being a background character in terms of presence and arcs/character developments.
I was more interested in the characters that we got and how they were used in MOS than what we saw in SR.
And I really didn't feel like Superman made that much of an progression as a character from the beginning of the film to the end of it like he did in MOS.