How To Correct a Misconception Made by Superman Returns

[Fresh Prince]

And what possible point could that ever actually make?

Obviously that Singer should of rebooted the franchise.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Singer was clearly a fan of Donner's movies and wanted to homage them and carry on from them, but to suggest that all he did was copy off Donner's mythology is silly at best. Singer introduced plenty of new elements to his Superman film.

Yeah, the going to Krypton part and the son part. And Lois being ******** about him leaving. But as the first poster of this thread says, Superman was mostly a lifeless doll in this movie. The was no character to evolve. He never spoke in the damn film. Read the first post of the thread, he says it best.

Anyway, Donner's Superman is an older version the character. The current comics Clark and Superman can be seen in "Lois & Clark". For example Clark is not a bumbling fool, but a dynamic and respectable reporter. His masquerade consists of hunching his back a bit, changing his hairdo and the glasses.

So it took Singer's bland movie to get it but they got it. Its time for a reboot. I heard rumours they were going darker, obviously because of Batman's success, but i hope to god DC arent that stupid to realise that they re different characters that are loved for different reasons.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Singer was clearly a fan of Donner's movies and wanted to homage them and carry on from them, but to suggest that all he did was copy off Donner's mythology is silly at best. Singer introduced plenty of new elements to his Superman film.

The new stuff he added I did not really care for either.

 

[Webhead2006]

me neither.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Yeah, me neither!

 

[mego joe]

Make it 4!

 

[AnorexicBatman]

What new stuff? We already had a FAR BETTER version of Superboy in the comics.
We did not need a bastard son.