Superman Returns Connections between Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" and SR

The reason he went forward with the Donner Universe is because this is the only version of Superman the general public has ever seen via film. It was extremely successful and WB and Singer wanted to bring back that Superman. It makes sense on paper when you think about it from a marketing standpoint. You have to remember that the general public doesn't read comics, but they do watch Smallville and are familiar with the Reeve version of Superman. Did it fail in the end? No. Was it as successful as WB thought it would be? No it wasnt.
 
The reason he went forward with the Donner Universe is because this is the only version of Superman the general public has ever seen via film. It was extremely successful and WB and Singer wanted to bring back that Superman. It makes sense on paper when you think about it from a marketing standpoint. You have to remember that the general public doesn't read comics, but they do watch Smallville and are familiar with the Reeve version of Superman. Did it fail in the end? No. Was it as successful as WB thought it would be? No it wasnt.

That surprises me. I don't think I know anyone that wanted a continuation of the Donner Superman Universe. Did they misunderstand fan interest in wanting Donner's cut of Superman II?

It's also kind of funny since so many of the fans of the Donner movies that don't like SR point to how unlike the SR Superman is eventhough he is supposed to be the same one.

On a personal note, between my friends and co-workers, I've only encountered 1 person that like Superman Returns. These are people that liked the Donner films and say things about how SR 'ruined' Superman. More interestingly, is how many people I've talked to that haven't even seen SR because of bad word-of-mouth from someone who has seen it.

I would think that with the '90's series "Lois and Clark" having been somewhat successful, a fresh start would have been welcomed by the public. And certainly Smallville and the Superman animated series from the 90's seems to show acceptance of other versions.

Do you think that the same is true for the Batman series? The four Burton/ Schumacher films are the only version of Batman the general public has ever seen via film as well and were much more recent than the Donner Superman films, yet Batman Begins was a complete restart of the franchise and did well. There is a lot of debate about how well BB and SR did comparitively, but I don't think there is any animosity towards the BB franchise like there is with SR and potential sequels.

Personally, do you think continuing the Donner Superman back-fired on WB as a concept, or just the particular story was not what it needed to be in order to be hugely successful?
 
well said, mego joe.

I think what hurt SR the most was the "vague sequelness" aspect of the movie. It wasn't a direct sequel / continuation to the Donner movies, nor was it a direct restart.

Plus, with the editing choices they made, the final film kind of presented audiences with a vague context.....almost as if we were thrown into an ongoing story without a proper setup or introduction to the story and characters.

And, that could have been easily fixed by including the comic-syle story board intro ( or the newspaper headline intro ) that they were planning on using. y'know, something time efficient that would quickly get the audience up to speed.

IOW, i feel it was the lack of a clear context that hurt the movie the most. it's like they expected us to already be familiar with the characters enough to "fill in the blanks." That's also why, it seems, we all can have very different interpretations about what happened in the movie......
 
well said, mego joe.

I think what hurt SR the most was the "vague sequelness" aspect of the movie. It wasn't a direct sequel / continuation to the Donner movies, nor was it a direct restart.


Dead on super-bats.

Interestingly the whole Donner-verse concept itself is vague. Does the Donner-verse include the events of only STM(Donner's only completed film) or does it also include the events of Lester's SII(built on Donner's foundation) and or the events of SII the Donner Cut?
 
right....

i mean, it's been, what, half a year since the movie's been out, and we're STILL not sure as to how SR fits into the "Donner-verse."

that's why it felt like we needed a better introduction/set-up than that brief text blurb we got.
 
right....

i mean, it's been, what, half a year since the movie's been out, and we're STILL not sure as to how SR fits into the "Donner-verse."

It's not entirely difficult. The entirety of the first film counts and the only things that were brought in from the second film was the fact that Luthor had been to the Fortress and that Superman and Lois had had a sexual relationship.
 
well, it's not really that clear. there are ppl who still believe that ALL the events in Superman 2 are in contuinity ( including amnesia kiss ).

also, it's not really clear if the sexual "encounter" took place in the FOS, ala SII, or if it occurred some other time........

in SR, it seems to imply that Lois and Superman slept together when he visited her apartment and took her flying ( as in S1 )......the "I spent the night with Superman" article.

also, in S2, Lois and Supes slept with each other AFTER she found out he was clark. Yet, in SR, Lois does not know Clark is Superman.

soooo....does that mean the amnesia kiss is in continuity, or what?

confusing........
 
well, it's not really that clear. there are ppl who still believe that ALL the events in Superman 2 are in contuinity ( including amnesia kiss ).

also, it's not really clear if the sexual "encounter" took place in the FOS, ala SII, or if it occurred some other time........

in SR, it seems to imply that Lois and Superman slept together when he visited her apartment and took her flying ( as in S1 )......the "I spent the night with Superman" article.

also, in S2, Lois and Supes slept with each other AFTER she found out he was clark. Yet, in SR, Lois does not know Clark is Superman.

soooo....does that mean the amnesia kiss is in continuity, or what?

confusing........

As far as the article went, Lois tells the truth to Richard--it was merely the title of an article. Perry's idea, even. So the sexual encounter didn't happen that night, at least.

As far as their sexual encounters go, it doesn't necessarily have to be the Fortress scene from II. It could have happened sometime after the first film. The only other thing really carried over from II is that Lex knows where the Fortress of Solitude is. Even knows how to activate the Voices of the Past.

That's about all one needs to know. Trying to fit the entirety of II (either the Lester OR the Donner Cuts) is pointless because Singer was merely trying to go off of what Donner had done in the first film. At that point there wasn't a Donner II so he couldn't make a sequel to that film if he even wanted to.
 
well, i'm not saying your conclusions are wrong, or mine are right.

but, that's just my point.....here we are, 2 ppl who saw the exact same movie, and yet we're coming to different interpretations on the exact context of the movie. you say one thing, I say another, someone else will come to yet another conclusion.

if the context ( in regards to the Donner verse ) was clear, then I don't think we would need to "debate" it. we would all come to pretty much the same conclusion.

For example, you say that the sex didn't have to happen in the FOS ( ala S2 ), it could have happened at another time. That's right......it could have happened at another time.

The problem is.....we don't know. many ppl think that it happened in S2 in the FOS ( because that's the one ppl remember most )........others might think it happened after S1, as you suggested.......or that it happened during S1, as I suggested.

but, again.....we really don't know for sure. and, that leads to confusion and different interpretations from the audience......

another example.....Batman Begins had a clear context. It was a complete restart, with nothing to do with the previous Bat films. So, when discussing how Begins fits into continuity, there would be no debate.....no different interpretations or conclusions.

likewise, if SR was a direct sequel to S2 ( be it the Lester or Donner version ) and picked up right where S2 left off, then we would know for sure what the right context is.

With SR being a vague sequel, it doesn't seem to be that clear......
 
For example, Batman Begins had a clear context. It was a complete restart, with nothing to do with the previous Bat films. So, when discussing how Begins fits into continuity, there would be no debate.....no different interpretations or conclusions.

With SR, it doesn't seem to be that clear......

You'd actually be real surprised how many people thought Begins was a prequel to Burton's film. I had to explain to my best friend again and again that those films and Schumacher's won't ever happen with this new Batman. That this was something completely different. He still didn't quite get it, but the thought of the Burton films not happening turned him off from the film (sadly).

SR is not meant to require a lot of thought either. First film happened, Lois and Supes bumped and Lex knows about the Fortress. I guess I'll never understand how anyone can have a hard time with it (no offense to you or anyone else, bats :) ). But that's just me.
 
That surprises me. I don't think I know anyone that wanted a continuation of the Donner Superman Universe. Did they misunderstand fan interest in wanting Donner's cut of Superman II?

It's also kind of funny since so many of the fans of the Donner movies that don't like SR point to how unlike the SR Superman is eventhough he is supposed to be the same one.

On a personal note, between my friends and co-workers, I've only encountered 1 person that like Superman Returns. These are people that liked the Donner films and say things about how SR 'ruined' Superman. More interestingly, is how many people I've talked to that haven't even seen SR because of bad word-of-mouth from someone who has seen it.

I would think that with the '90's series "Lois and Clark" having been somewhat successful, a fresh start would have been welcomed by the public. And certainly Smallville and the Superman animated series from the 90's seems to show acceptance of other versions.

Do you think that the same is true for the Batman series? The four Burton/ Schumacher films are the only version of Batman the general public has ever seen via film as well and were much more recent than the Donner Superman films, yet Batman Begins was a complete restart of the franchise and did well. There is a lot of debate about how well BB and SR did comparitively, but I don't think there is any animosity towards the BB franchise like there is with SR and potential sequels.

Personally, do you think continuing the Donner Superman back-fired on WB as a concept, or just the particular story was not what it needed to be in order to be hugely successful?

You're trying to tell me that Lois and Clark is the most well know version of Superman to grace visual media? It's obviously Christopher Reeve's potrayal of Superman. Although the television show was well received, for several years, if you bring up Superman the first person the GP will think of is Christopher Reeve. They will not think of Dean Cain or a picture in the pages of a comic, they will think of Christopher Reeve. The general public does of course does watch Smallville, but that isn't Superman. It's Clark on the farm. The people who watch the animated series are in no way the general public.

Most people I talk to understand the relationship to the Donner movies, appreciated the tributes, and marveled at the job done by Routh. It just depends who you run with. The people I am refering to don't give a damn about Superman or read a comic book. They liked the movie. What does that matter anyway, everybody has a different opinion.

I never said that Superman couldn't or shouldn't have been restarted, I just pointed out it made sense to me on paper to go forward with the most relevant and well known version of Superman in the visual media and use it to jump from. They could have certainly restarted Superman and had much success, the reason I didn't, actually lies with the television show that WB runs. I think that is why they didn't.

The problem is that there is not as much animosity as people make it out to be, just as there is not as much love for the movie as others contend. You can't say the movie was a bust when it made over 200 million domestic with 25 million people going to see it, 391 million worldwide, #5 domestic grossing movie of 06, good rental numbers, and solid sales figures. On the other hand it was "super" successful, it didn't hit the numbers WB had hoped for, 500 millon worldwide. It split the fandom, and the reviews seem to be split.

I for one enjoyed the movie, and it brought me back to my childhood. I don't think it was a mistake to use the Donner movie as a foundation, but I also don't think it worked out the way they wanted obviously. However it is what it is. The movie performed well enough to warrant a sequel, and all signs point to Singer and his writers going forward with it.
 
You'd actually be real surprised how many people thought Begins was a prequel to Burton's film. I had to explain to my best friend again and again that those films and Schumacher's won't ever happen with this new Batman. That this was something completely different. He still didn't quite get it, but the thought of the Burton films not happening turned him off from the film (sadly).

SR is not meant to require a lot of thought either. First film happened, Lois and Supes bumped and Lex knows about the Fortress. I guess I'll never understand how anyone can have a hard time with it (no offense to you or anyone else, bats :) ). But that's just me.

You're are much more forgiving than I.

How do you explain away the fact that at the end of STM Lex is in prison, doing time, a convicted felon. Then in SR he's a free man, with knowledge of the location of the FOS?

SII includes his prison escape and subsequent journey to the FOS. Well that explains his knowledge of the fortress' location. It does nothing to explain his freedom, but wait your argument disavows any involvement of SII in the vague history. So how exactly, if SII details are not part of the vague history, did he find the FOS? Certainly the magnitude of that plotline needs explaining.

Too many questions, too much ambiguity, for my tastes.
 
my point exactly......

and, the thing is, it could have easily been solved by including the original Comic style storyboard intro, or the newspaper headline intro. If they had gone with that, that would have quickly brought the audience up-to-speed, laying out the basic backstory of the movie......
 
my point exactly......

and, the thing is, it could have easily been solved by including the original Comic style storyboard intro, or the newspaper headline intro. If they had gone with that, that would have quickly brought the audience up-to-speed, laying out the basic backstory of the movie......

Somewhat yes, but the relationship of Lois and Superman would still be very confusing.
 
You're trying to tell me that Lois and Clark is the most well know version of Superman to grace visual media? It's obviously Christopher Reeve's potrayal of Superman. Although the television show was well received, for several years, if you bring up Superman the first person the GP will think of is Christopher Reeve. They will not think of Dean Cain or a picture in the pages of a comic, they will think of Christopher Reeve. The general public does of course does watch Smallville, but that isn't Superman. It's Clark on the farm. The people who watch the animated series are in no way the general public.

Most people I talk to understand the relationship to the Donner movies, appreciated the tributes, and marveled at the job done by Routh. It just depends who you run with. The people I am refering to don't give a damn about Superman or read a comic book. They liked the movie. What does that matter anyway, everybody has a different opinion.

I never said that Superman couldn't or shouldn't have been restarted, I just pointed out it made sense to me on paper to go forward with the most relevant and well known version of Superman in the visual media and use it to jump from. They could have certainly restarted Superman and had much success, the reason I didn't, actually lies with the television show that WB runs. I think that is why they didn't.

The problem is that there is not as much animosity as people make it out to be, just as there is not as much love for the movie as others contend. You can't say the movie was a bust when it made over 200 million domestic with 25 million people going to see it, 391 million worldwide, #5 domestic grossing movie of 06, good rental numbers, and solid sales figures. On the other hand it was "super" successful, it didn't hit the numbers WB had hoped for, 500 millon worldwide. It split the fandom, and the reviews seem to be split.

I for one enjoyed the movie, and it brought me back to my childhood. I don't think it was a mistake to use the Donner movie as a foundation, but I also don't think it worked out the way they wanted obviously. However it is what it is. The movie performed well enough to warrant a sequel, and all signs point to Singer and his writers going forward with it.

Most people I talk to don't read the comics either, but just know Superman from general knowledge and the Donner films I'm assuming. And as I said, only 1 person liked it.

My point about "Lois and Clark" was not that it was more well know than Christopher Reeve's Superman, but that it didn't flop as a series because it was not in the most well know continuity. It provided fresh looks at the Superman mythos and still found an audience for 4 seasons without any connection to previous continuity.

My point about it backfiring for WB was pointed at what you mention about fandom and reviews, was the problem the continuation of the Donnerverse or just the particular movie we got. What I'm saying is, personally, in your opinion, do you think SR split fandon and got mixed reviews b/c of the whole idea of tying it to the Donnerverse or just b/c of the particular movie we got.
 
It's not entirely difficult. The entirety of the first film counts and

Except for the twelve years he spent studying with Jor-El in the Fortress. THe SR DVD extras give a different history for Superman. So, who knows what else might not count, especially in relation to Jor-El and his mandates for Superman.

the only things that were brought in from the second film was the fact that Luthor had been to the Fortress and that Superman and Lois had had a sexual relationship.

THe context of the relationship is important though. Naturally, the average audience member is going to assume that Jason was conceived in the Fortress during Superman II, b/c the general audience member is not going to be so hung up on things that he is aware the movie is intended to be a 'vague sequel.' That's strictly for people like us.
 
You'd actually be real surprised how many people thought Begins was a prequel to Burton's film. I had to explain to my best friend again and again that those films and Schumacher's won't ever happen with this new Batman. That this was something completely different. He still didn't quite get it, but the thought of the Burton films not happening turned him off from the film (sadly).

SR is not meant to require a lot of thought either. First film happened, Lois and Supes bumped and Lex knows about the Fortress. I guess I'll never understand how anyone can have a hard time with it (no offense to you or anyone else, bats :) ). But that's just me.

The difference between BB and SR is that BB is about perception of the viewer misconstruing something and SR is about intention of the filmmaker.

Nolan was not going to start BB with a disclaimer saying "THis is not a prequel." The fact that the Joker card shows up at the end and he meets Gordon for the first time in BB (he wouldn't need to meet him again for the first time in Batman '89) and his parents are killed by someone else, Joe Chill, not the Joker and he knows who it is, he doesn't discover it as Batman like in Batman '89. THese should be sufficient for the viewer to tell that this isn't a prequel to the other Batman films, nothing in the films gives any indication that it is.

However, Singer gives many indications that this is a continuation of the other films, from the music to Routh's chanelling of Reeve, to things like the "I Spent the Night with SUperman" articel. Many things point to the fact that this is intended to be a continuation. It is therefore encumbent upon Singer to be clear about what is in continuity if it all is not in continuity. I'm sure plenty of people think the amnesia kiss from Lester's SII is supposed to be part of the continuity of the film. Singer makes it clear that this movie is related to the previous films, but entirely unclear about what is not in continuity, and therefore confusing b/c the viewer must make up part of the story on his own.
 
Most people I talk to don't read the comics either, but just know Superman from general knowledge and the Donner films I'm assuming. And as I said, only 1 person liked it.

My point about "Lois and Clark" was not that it was more well know than Christopher Reeve's Superman, but that it didn't flop as a series because it was not in the most well know continuity. It provided fresh looks at the Superman mythos and still found an audience for 4 seasons without any connection to previous continuity.

My point about it backfiring for WB was pointed at what you mention about fandom and reviews, was the problem the continuation of the Donnerverse or just the particular movie we got. What I'm saying is, personally, in your opinion, do you think SR split fandon and got mixed reviews b/c of the whole idea of tying it to the Donnerverse or just b/c of the particular movie we got.

I dont think the split had anything to do with the Donnerverse, the majority of the people that are upset are so because of changes in the suit, the kid, and characterization of Superman. It's not really the tributes or homages that bother them, it's the deviation from earlier versions of Superman that they hold as the true definition of the character. At least that is what I am getting.
 
I dont think the split had anything to do with the Donnerverse, the majority of the people that are upset are so because of changes in the suit, the kid, and characterization of Superman. It's not really the tributes or homages that bother them, it's the deviation from earlier versions of Superman that they hold as the true definition of the character. At least that is what I am getting.

I would agree. Although, some folks do throw in the 'requel' bit as a criticism of SR.
 
I would agree. Although, some folks do throw in the 'requel' bit as a criticism of SR.


No doubt it is there, but if it was a ladder, that complaint is on the lower rung.
 
No doubt it is there, but if it was a ladder, that complaint is on the lower rung.


True. If people like the story and characterization more, they probably wouldn't mention it much. It gets easier to heap more and more criticism on something you don't like the basic premise of.
 
True. If people like the story and characterization more, they probably wouldn't mention it much. It gets easier to heap more and more criticism on something you don't like the basic premise of.

I think that is exactly what it is for some.
 
The reason he went forward with the Donner Universe is because this is the only version of Superman the general public has ever seen via film. It was extremely successful and WB and Singer wanted to bring back that Superman. It makes sense on paper when you think about it from a marketing standpoint. You have to remember that the general public doesn't read comics, but they do watch Smallville and are familiar with the Reeve version of Superman. Did it fail in the end? No. Was it as successful as WB thought it would be? No it wasnt.


I am so thankful that they stayed true to what donner had did. If they did something dfferent it would have made the first 2 movies obsolete. Now I dont think they (Singer and his group) executed it as well as they should have though i.e. poor editing and overall to dark color pallette
 
I am so thankful that they stayed true to what donner had did. If they did something dfferent it would have made the first 2 movies obsolete. Now I dont think they (Singer and his group) executed it as well as they should have though i.e. poor editing and overall to dark color pallette

I liked the idea as well, I think the problem is they confused some of the general public with the vague history. I wasn't a fan of some of the editing, I think Dougherty and Harris's script as it was would have been more complete Superman story. I know that happens with most all movies though.
 
hey, showtime....

so, how was the original script different than what we got in the final film?

and, how can I read the original script?

thanks.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"