Superman Returns I'm over it.

[YÅ«gi's BM]

When I first saw Superman Returns I was understandably angry, this wasn’t the Superman or Clark Kent I knew and loved. I felt Singer was too emotionally attached to the Donner films and to a Superman that today’s generation didn’t recognize. I saw the film once in theaters, and then twice more on DVD. The lack of action didn’t bother me as much as the fact that it felt shallow. We—or I at the very least—were not there from day one. I didn’t know how it began; all I know is that these events happened to Superman roughly what, seven or ten years into his career? It just felt a little odd. Heck, Superman Returns doesn’t even have a plot to speak of. It was like a two hour thirty minute long character piece. The story hadn’t begun. This was Superman just returning to the movie set. He’s here now, sorry for the wait. Superman’s life—his adventures—begin right after this.

The third chance was seemingly the charm, I’ve got a vague idea of who this Superman is and rather then clamoring for a reboot which would only delay the commencing of the Man of Steel’s life. When it comes to Jason, I think that was my favorite part of the film. It made me want to see how this continuity advances.

This movie was the Star Trek: The Motion Picture of Superman films. It was darn near motionless but if what Bryan Singer promises is true, The Wrath of Khan that should be the next film will entertain.


~YBM

 

[Super Kal]

it's more like gonna be The Wrath of Zod... then The Search for Richard

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Or it could be "The One Day Kakarot Will Actually Tell a Funny Joke in and Attempt to Make Fun of SR Franchise"

Nah too long and hard to market

 

[hammy]

I don't understand why anyone is willing to give Singer a second chance. He doesn't deserve it. He made promises the first time, too.

 

[Super Kal]

Or it could be "The One Day Kakarot Will Actually Tell a Funny Joke in and Attempt to Make Fun of SR Franchise"

Nah too long and hard to market

C. Lee actually found it pretty funny... so you fail.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

it's more like gonna be The Wrath of Zod... then The Search for Richard

Hahahahahahaha! t:

The Search for Richard (that's the funny title, just to clarify)

 

[Dan33977]

When I first saw Superman Returns I was understandably angry, this wasn’t the Superman or Clark Kent I knew and loved. I felt Singer was too emotionally attached to the Donner films and to a Superman that today’s generation didn’t recognize. I saw the film once in theaters, and then twice more on DVD. The lack of action didn’t bother me as much as the fact that it felt shallow. We—or I at the very least—were not there from day one. I didn’t know how it began; all I know is that these events happened to Superman roughly what, seven or ten years into his career? It just felt a little odd. Heck, Superman Returns doesn’t even have a plot to speak of. It was like a two hour thirty minute long character piece. The story hadn’t begun. This was Superman just returning to the movie set. He’s here now, sorry for the wait. Superman’s life—his adventures—begin right after this.

The third chance was seemingly the charm, I’ve got a vague idea of who this Superman is and rather then clamoring for a reboot which would only delay the commencing of the Man of Steel’s life. When it comes to Jason, I think that was my favorite part of the film. It made me want to see how this continuity advances.

This movie was the Star Trek: The Motion Picture of Superman films. It was darn near motionless but if what Bryan Singer promises is true, The Wrath of Khan that should be the next film will entertain.


~YBM

OK!

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

C. Lee actually found it pretty funny... so you fail.

First, C. Lee isn't the authority on comedy. That would be Carrot Top.

Secondly I was just pointing out that before reading your posts we are aware of a likelihood that it's going to be a slight against SR. That's about all you do these days.

 

[Super Kal]

lol, shows how much you know...

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

That's right.

She knows it too!

BWAH HA HA

 

[KalMart]

When I first saw Superman Returns I was understandably angry, this wasn’t the Superman or Clark Kent I knew and loved. I felt Singer was too emotionally attached to the Donner films and to a Superman that today’s generation didn’t recognize. I saw the film once in theaters, and then twice more on DVD. The lack of action didn’t bother me as much as the fact that it felt shallow. We—or I at the very least—were not there from day one. I didn’t know how it began; all I know is that these events happened to Superman roughly what, seven or ten years into his career? It just felt a little odd. Heck, Superman Returns doesn’t even have a plot to speak of. It was like a two hour thirty minute long character piece. The story hadn’t begun. This was Superman just returning to the movie set. He’s here now, sorry for the wait. Superman’s life—his adventures—begin right after this.

The third chance was seemingly the charm, I’ve got a vague idea of who this Superman is and rather then clamoring for a reboot which would only delay the commencing of the Man of Steel’s life. When it comes to Jason, I think that was my favorite part of the film. It made me want to see how this continuity advances.

This movie was the Star Trek: The Motion Picture of Superman films. It was darn near motionless but if what Bryan Singer promises is true, The Wrath of Khan that should be the next film will entertain.


~YBM

Thing is....Star Trek I was an absolute blunder of a movie. ST II, aside from being a pretty good flick, was for all intents and purposes, an apology for the first film as well, and really should've been the first film. ST I was not meant as a setup for the second. Paramount didn't skillfully lull us to sleep just to shock us out of our slumber in the second film....they were hoping the first would be the cat's meow (no real thoughts about a sequel), seeing that Fox had a new uber-successful sci-fi commodity...but once they realized how lousy ST I was, they had to come out with a better one. Aside from the actual characters, there was virtually no carry-over of continuity in terms of storyline or anything else. It was as if the first movie never happened...about as close to a reboot as you can have while keeping the same characters/actors.

Singer or whomever using the Wrath of Khan analogy is basically admitting what a misstep the first film was. Is that the model that he wanted to follow from the outset? If someone were to use the Empire Strikes Back analogy, I think that would say a lot more about the entire franchise...although SR was anything but Star Wars. Would anyone out there really want to use Star Trek I ask an example of how to start a new series of movies?

 

[DarkMajin]

Thing is....Star Trek I was an absolute blunder of a movie. ST II, aside from being a pretty good flick, was for all intents and purposes, an apology for the first film as well, and really should've been the first film. ST I was not meant as a setup for the second. Paramount didn't skillfully lull us to sleep just to shock us out of our slumber in the second film....they were hoping the first would be the cat's meow (no real thoughts about a sequel), seeing that Fox had a new uber-successful sci-fi commodity...but once they realized how lousy ST I was, they had to come out with a better one. Aside from the actual characters, there was virtually no carry-over of continuity in terms of storyline or anything else. It was as if the first movie never happened...about as close to a reboot as you can have while keeping the same characters/actors.

Spot on really...I suspect the guys who got the brain leeches in Part II were in such pain because they had to experience Part I in their minds over and all.
I disliked Part I...but loved Part II.
From what I have seen, typically it's a minority of people that really love Part I.

Singer or whomever using the Wrath of Khan analogy is basically admitting what a misstep the first film was. Is that the model that he wanted to follow from the outset? If someone were to use the Empire Strikes Back analogy, I think that would say a lot more about the entire franchise...although SR was anything but Star Wars. Would anyone out there really want to use Star Trek I ask an example of how to start a new series of movies?

Well, if he does decide to follow the Wrath of Khan model, we'll be seeing the following:
1. Jason's going to be rather upset with Supes for not being around.
2. Lois is going to feel a stronger rekindling of desire for Supes.
3. There will be a Shatnerarian bellow but with Zod's name.
4. We'll just say Supes punches Richard at some point, for dramatic effect.
5. Supes beats Zod at the end in a fight space where he lures him into a nebula, and well, blasts him with his super heat vision.

If the villain isn't Zod, just replace with villain's name.

 

[KalMart]

I don't see the Khan analogy as following the plot devices and details...more like upping the ante overall...but you could really apply those points to a lot of second installments. There are no new ideas, just different angles...and those are overused, too. But again...ST 1 was an f-up. You can not watch it, and not lose a thing going into ST II. Problem with SR is that there's a lot of narrative continuity that'll have to carry over...and a bigger problem is that a lot of that is boring as hell. Love triangle, Jason having two fathers...do we really want to step THAT up? At the same time...you can't just ignore it after spending so much time establishing it in the first movie.

And THEN...say this next Supes movie is set 2-3 years after SR. It seemed to me that there were some major issues left unresolved at the end of SR that needed to be resolved right then and there. 2-3 years later...are Lois and Richard still together and not married? Does Jason still not know that Supes is his dad? How is it like for Clark seeing Jason visit the Planet when he knows he's his son? So...you set up all this personal drama in the first movie....and then the real meat of it, the resolution...is gonna have to happen that very next week, or even day, for it to make sense....years before the storyline in the second movie. If Lois is questioning whether she wants to stay with Richard or go back to Supes, will it really take her another 2-3 years to decide? Is Richard going to stand for that? Is Jason suddenly going to wonder just what happened on the boat 2-3 years later? The kid is going to grow...they change a lot in 2-3 years, especially at that age...so it'll be obvious that time has passed unless they can stop the kid actor from aging. F'd up, no? It's like giving someone a car that they don't really want or need, then waiting 2-3 years to give them the keys.

I don't think Singer was admitting to failure with SR when referring to Wrath of Khan, more of picking things up...but hey, how 'bout stepping up the first time and building some momentum?

 

[buggs0268]

When I first saw Superman Returns I was understandably angry, this wasn’t the Superman or Clark Kent I knew and loved. I felt Singer was too emotionally attached to the Donner films and to a Superman that today’s generation didn’t recognize. I saw the film once in theaters, and then twice more on DVD. The lack of action didn’t bother me as much as the fact that it felt shallow. We—or I at the very least—were not there from day one. I didn’t know how it began; all I know is that these events happened to Superman roughly what, seven or ten years into his career? It just felt a little odd. Heck, Superman Returns doesn’t even have a plot to speak of. It was like a two hour thirty minute long character piece. The story hadn’t begun. This was Superman just returning to the movie set. He’s here now, sorry for the wait. Superman’s life—his adventures—begin right after this.

The third chance was seemingly the charm, I’ve got a vague idea of who this Superman is and rather then clamoring for a reboot which would only delay the commencing of the Man of Steel’s life. When it comes to Jason, I think that was my favorite part of the film. It made me want to see how this continuity advances.

This movie was the Star Trek: The Motion Picture of Superman films. It was darn near motionless but if what Bryan Singer promises is true, The Wrath of Khan that should be the next film will entertain.


~YBM

The thing is, Singer's Superman is nothing like Donner's Superman. He stole a lot of stuff except for the Banter and fun of the original characters. I actually think that Routh's Superman/Clark Kent have nothing to do at all with Reeve's Superman/Clark Kent.

 

[buggs0268]

Or it could be "The One Day Kakarot Will Actually Tell a Funny Joke in and Attempt to Make Fun of SR Franchise"

Nah too long and hard to market

Huh? Was that supposed to be funny? I am lost. Can someone tell me if he was supposed to be trying to make a joke or not.

 

[buggs0268]

First, C. Lee isn't the authority on comedy. That would be Carrot Top.

Secondly I was just pointing out that before reading your posts we are aware of a likelihood that it's going to be a slight against SR. That's about all you do these days.

And we know that before reading your post it is going to be defending SR. So what is your point? So what, he can't post his opinion here?

 

[buggs0268]

Thing is....Star Trek I was an absolute blunder of a movie. ST II, aside from being a pretty good flick, was for all intents and purposes, an apology for the first film as well, and really should've been the first film. ST I was not meant as a setup for the second. Paramount didn't skillfully lull us to sleep just to shock us out of our slumber in the second film....they were hoping the first would be the cat's meow (no real thoughts about a sequel), seeing that Fox had a new uber-successful sci-fi commodity...but once they realized how lousy ST I was, they had to come out with a better one. Aside from the actual characters, there was virtually no carry-over of continuity in terms of storyline or anything else. It was as if the first movie never happened...about as close to a reboot as you can have while keeping the same characters/actors.

Singer or whomever using the Wrath of Khan analogy is basically admitting what a misstep the first film was. Is that the model that he wanted to follow from the outset? If someone were to use the Empire Strikes Back analogy, I think that would say a lot more about the entire franchise...although SR was anything but Star Wars. Would anyone out there really want to use Star Trek I ask an example of how to start a new series of movies?

the thing is, Star Trek the Motion Picture still made a buttload of money for that year. It made $82,258,456, and cost $35 million to make, so it still made double what it cost, which at that time was a big money maker. It was in no way a financial bomb. The problem with that movie was that they didn't have a full script when they started. They had no ending, so no one knew where the story was going. The original effects vendor lied to them and was putting out crap effects, so they had to hire another effects vendor, and they didn't finish all of the shots due to time. The only effects that showed up in the film where the ones they had finished, and this is with 2 houses working on it. Hell they were shooing miniatures when they weren't even done. The flyover of V'ger was still being built while they were shooting it, with guys working on the other side of a black curtain on the unfinished parts. The film had so many effects shots in it as they were trying to pad out for time what they didn't have for story. Star Trek had a lot of things going against it. In fact, they were so late finishing it that they were still making the prints the day of release. They had to fly them all over the country. Robert Wise had to carry the copy of the release prints for the premiere in Washington with him on the plane. They were literally down to the wire on it. If they had had 3 more months we would have had a different film. And I saw it in the theater and no one was bored with it. People were clapping and cheering. Laughing during all of the parts they were supposed to laugh at. People stood up and gave it a standing ovation when the credits came up. And I saw it 2 days after it opened.
This is different from SR, where people rarely laughed, and people were mostly bored at the first showing I saw it at. Trust me, seeing Star Trek 1 in the theater was very different from seeing SR in the theater.

 

[KalMart]

the thing is, Star Trek the Motion Picture still made a buttload of money for that year. It made $82,258,456, and cost $35 million to make, so it still made double what it cost, which at that time was a big money maker. It was in no way a financial bomb.

The other thing is...I didn't say it was a financial bomb. But it certainly was a yawner. Luckily, ST II made up for it without really depending on any continuity from the first film. SR's sequel doesn't quite have that luxury.

The problem with that movie was that they didn't have a full script when they started. They had no ending, so no one knew where the story was going. The original effects vendor lied to them and was putting out crap effects, so they had to hire another effects vendor, and they didn't finish all of the shots due to time. The only effects that showed up in the film where the ones they had finished, and this is with 2 houses working on it. Hell they were shooing miniatures when they weren't even done. The flyover of V'ger was still being built while they were shooting it, with guys working on the other side of a black curtain on the unfinished parts. The film had so many effects shots in it as they were trying to pad out for time what they didn't have for story. Star Trek had a lot of things going against it. In fact, they were so late finishing it that they were still making the prints the day of release. They had to fly them all over the country. Robert Wise had to carry the copy of the release prints for the premiere in Washington with him on the plane. They were literally down to the wire on it. If they had had 3 more months we would have had a different film.

And I'm sure that audiences were aware of this while it played, and sympathized. I've seen the 'redux', with new effects/sounds etc...and all it is is the same slow movie with newer effects/sounds etc.

And I saw it in the theater and no one was bored with it. People were clapping and cheering. Laughing during all of the parts they were supposed to laugh at. People stood up and gave it a standing ovation when the credits came up. And I saw it 2 days after it opened.

I saw it too, and people were leaving before Spock got into his spacesuit and entered the cloud or whatever it was. I had to convince my friend to stay until the end...and later, I had to apologize. Are you sure it wasn't Khan you're talking about? It's been a while.

This is different from SR, where people rarely laughed, and people were mostly bored at the first showing I saw it at. Trust me, seeing Star Trek 1 in the theater was very different from seeing SR in the theater.

Trust me, once the movie got about 10 minutes in...the majority of people who did go to see it because it was Star Trek realized what a ponderous opus it was. The rest, who may have been looking for more of what Star Wars had to offer, just didn't like it.

But yes, SR was also a yawner. Getting back to the actual point...if Singer was at all influenced by Star Trek I as a way of setting up the second movie, it was a bad way to go...but I seriously doubt he meant that when casually using the Wrath of Khan reference. Wrath of Khan was a great ride for both Star Trek fans and non-fans alike. Hopefully, Singer will do likewise with the next Supes movie.

It's just that...all that drama.....

 

[buggs0268]

The other thing is...I didn't say it was a financial bomb. But it certainly was a yawner. Luckily, ST II made up for it without really depending on any continuity from the first film. SR's sequel doesn't quite have that luxury.


And I'm sure that audiences were aware of this while it played, and sympathized. I've seen the 'redux', with new effects/sounds etc...and all it is is the same slow movie with newer effects/sounds etc.


I saw it too, and people were leaving before Spock got into his spacesuit and entered the cloud or whatever it was. I had to convince my friend to stay until the end...and later, I had to apologize. Are you sure it wasn't Khan you're talking about? It's been a while.


Trust me, once the movie got about 10 minutes in...the majority of people who did go to see it because it was Star Trek realized what a ponderous opus it was. The rest, who may have been looking for more of what Star Wars had to offer, just didn't like it.

But yes, SR was also a yawner. Getting back to the actual point...if Singer was at all influenced by Star Trek I as a way of setting up the second movie, it was a bad way to go...but I seriously doubt he meant that when casually using the Wrath of Khan reference. Wrath of Khan was a great ride for both Star Trek fans and non-fans alike. Hopefully, Singer will do likewise with the next Supes movie.

It's just that...all that drama.....

There was a much different reaction at the Waikiki 3 where I saw it. But whatever. I just didn't think it was received as bad as people think it was now.

 

[KalMart]

There was a much different reaction at the Waikiki 3 where I saw it. But whatever. I just didn't think it was received as bad as people think it was now.

I dunno....here in the NY/CT area, it was all but laughed at. The best was two fans in costume...one as Spock, the other as that alien imposter with antennae from the episode with Sarek, I believe...actually leaving before the movie was over. They were in the 5th or 6th row, so everyone saw them get up and leave...I just remember laughing at the silhouette of antennae as they got up and slowly made their way out of the seats. t:

 

[buggs0268]

I dunno....here in the NY/CT area, it was all but laughed at. The best was two fans in costume...one as Spock, the other as that alien imposter with antennae from the episode with Sarek, I believe...actually leaving before the movie was over. They were in the 5th or 6th row, so everyone saw them get up and leave...I just remember laughing at the silhouette of antennae as they got up and slowly made their way out of the seats. t:

Heh. I guess that would be kind of funny to see.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

After reading the last few extensive posts, I've reached a conclusion of my own...so, to quote Jurassic Park, "hold on to your butts"...

1) Production: Singer had a ton of responsibilities with this film. He had to pay a long-overdue homage to the Donner / Reeve saga, reintroduce all of the mythology staples for an entire new generation, update the character relationships to relate with the present day, and oversee a huge film that involved tons of writing, rewriting, directing, and shooting in two countries over the course 2 years or better.

2) Post-Production: The whole crew of editors and such working on the film weren't just bringing back a cinematic hero...they were resurrecting the best comic-book hero ever created. Following the poor responses to III & IV, the various cartoons and the 90s "Superboy" series, people were sick of Kal-El being treated poorly. Superman had been sent to the cinematic Phantom Zone, and getting him out was likely no easy task.

3) While putting this new adventure together, I'm pretty sure Mr. Singer was faced with the same question Donner & Mankiewicz had to answer 30 years ago: "What is the central focus of this character, and the story in general?" When dealing with a very powerful alien being, you're stuck as a writer, because ordinarily Superman could destroy anything with a simple punch. Donner and "Mank" used Lois Lane's relationships with Clark & Supes as the center of the wheel, to balance out the action and drama. Singer did something similar, when he decided to have our hero face something even he couldn't defy...the natural passage of time. No matter how powerful or smart Kal-El is, he's still subject to time, and that was the "central hub" for this new movie.

Regarding this storyline, I'm actually interested to see where it goes. Unlike most, the addition of Jason didn't bother me too much; my only beef was Lois and Richard not being married. The love triangle would have been more dramatic if Supes were to be faced with a committed marriage, rather than a "prolonged engagement"...just my 2 cents, though.

 

[KalMart]

After reading the last few extensive posts, I've reached a conclusion of my own...so, to quote Jurassic Park, "hold on to your butts"...

1) Production: Singer had a ton of responsibilities with this film. He had to pay a long-overdue homage to the Donner / Reeve saga, reintroduce all of the mythology staples for an entire new generation, update the character relationships to relate with the present day, and oversee a huge film that involved tons of writing, rewriting, directing, and shooting in two countries over the course 2 years or better.

He could've just held a banquet for Donner/Reeve instead of subjecting audiences to his love-letter, though. Singer's responsibilities on this film were no different than any director/producer on a big-budget picture. He doesn't deserve any extra credit or leeway for having a harder job to do than Nolan, Raimi, or Verbinski did on their movies. He knew what he was taking on. Som emay say that Singer was tasked with resurrecting a character/franchise...that was the wrong approach, if so. Not that I wanted one of the ghastly earlier Burton/Abrams versions, but they should've treated it more as a new Superman franchise, not a continuation or rebirth. Donner's Superman got plenty of respect and recognition, we didn't need to go over it again. And as for this generation...they and the rest of the general moviegoers are smack in the middle of big-time movie franchises that give their money's worth of entertainment. Most aren't looking for a sentimental stroll down memory lane in their summer blockbusters.

2) Post-Production: The whole crew of editors and such working on the film weren't just bringing back a cinematic hero...they were resurrecting the best comic-book hero ever created. Following the poor responses to III & IV, the various cartoons and the 90s "Superboy" series, people were sick of Kal-El being treated poorly. Superman had been sent to the cinematic Phantom Zone, and getting him out was likely no easy task.

Again, the vast majority of the moviegoing audience, outside of avid Superman fans, don't care how Superman was 'treated' in recent adaptations. They wanted a good, fun movie, not a redemption. X-Men wasn't successful because it stuck closely to what the comics had done...they changed a lot of it up...it was successful because it was reinterpreted into a good movie. I was hoping that Singer could bring at least some of this more objective approach to Superman as well (save the black leather, of course), but alas...the movie looked back more than it looked forward, or grew. This has little to do with Post-productoin....it was in the writing.

3) While putting this new adventure together, I'm pretty sure Mr. Singer was faced with the same question Donner & Mankiewicz had to answer 30 years ago: "What is the central focus of this character, and the story in general?" When dealing with a very powerful alien being, you're stuck as a writer, because ordinarily Superman could destroy anything with a simple punch. Donner and "Mank" used Lois Lane's relationships with Clark & Supes as the center of the wheel, to balance out the action and drama. Singer did something similar, when he decided to have our hero face something even he couldn't defy...the natural passage of time. No matter how powerful or smart Kal-El is, he's still subject to time, and that was the "central hub" for this new movie.

I'm fine with that sentiment, but the overall delivery just didn't have enough impact. I'm not trying to bash the movie outright, Moviefan, or just be argumentative...it's just that how hardcore Superman fans and general moviegoers were awaiting this movie (or not awaiting it) are different. WB probably felt that just the Superman name and brand was plenty to sell this movie...it clearly wasn't. Singer seemed to feel that lots of moviegoers would have the same sentimental attachment to the Donner movie and it would carry over into this one. It didn't....not to the intended extent...and unfortunately, this movie relied on that more than anything. I think that this passage of time was all but forgotten, or not even an issue, with a lot of people who went to see the movie. As good as Superman The Movie was, it doesn't have the same presence or staying power with people as Star Wars (something that I think Lucas exploited rather shamelessly and tactlessly in the prequels...but just the Star Wars name sold them). There were some good things about this movie...and I think that the filmmakers and cast were good choices...I felt so before the movie opened....if they could've just cut the umbillical cord and went forward.

 

[YÅ«gi's BM]

I'm willing to give Singer a second chance because he deserves it. Everybody does, no?

I'm nearly seventeen. I've got YEARS ahead of me. In twenty or thirty years when they do a reboot, I'll be there. I'm tired of living with hatred over a movie that was or wasn't made.

That and I want to actually see where things go from here.

 

[buggs0268]

After reading the last few extensive posts, I've reached a conclusion of my own...so, to quote Jurassic Park, "hold on to your butts"...

1) Production: Singer had a ton of responsibilities with this film. He had to pay a long-overdue homage to the Donner / Reeve saga, reintroduce all of the mythology staples for an entire new generation, update the character relationships to relate with the present day, and oversee a huge film that involved tons of writing, rewriting, directing, and shooting in two countries over the course 2 years or better.

He chose to do what became SR. It was his story that he pitched to the WB. There weren't that many rewrites as it was him and his buddies. So they shot some things in a second country. Many films shoot over multiple countries. It is just par for the course in film making. This doesn't make Singer special.

2) Post-Production: The whole crew of editors and such working on the film weren't just bringing back a cinematic hero...they were resurrecting the best comic-book hero ever created. Following the poor responses to III & IV, the various cartoons and the 90s "Superboy" series, people were sick of Kal-El being treated poorly. Superman had been sent to the cinematic Phantom Zone, and getting him out was likely no easy task.

And they failed. And Singer got stupid in deciding to film the whole script and edit it all together before cutting stuff out and using days for scenes that wont be in the film to shoot bridging shots, like most films do. Singer needed to stop going to parties and getting drugged out and fallng asleep in the editing room when he should have been up editing. The film is not edited well.

3) While putting this new adventure together, I'm pretty sure Mr. Singer was faced with the same question Donner & Mankiewicz had to answer 30 years ago: "What is the central focus of this character, and the story in general?" When dealing with a very powerful alien being, you're stuck as a writer, because ordinarily Superman could destroy anything with a simple punch. Donner and "Mank" used Lois Lane's relationships with Clark & Supes as the center of the wheel, to balance out the action and drama. Singer did something similar, when he decided to have our hero face something even he couldn't defy...the natural passage of time. No matter how powerful or smart Kal-El is, he's still subject to time, and that was the "central hub" for this new movie.

Huh? I think you are the only one that sees that. That was not the central hub of the film. Lois being with someone else was the central theme of the film. Superman standing outside her house and using his x-ray vision to stalk her is.

Regarding this storyline, I'm actually interested to see where it goes. Unlike most, the addition of Jason didn't bother me too much; my only beef was Lois and Richard not being married. The love triangle would have been more dramatic if Supes were to be faced with a committed marriage, rather than a "prolonged engagement"...just my 2 cents, though.

I hope they do a roboot because this story is going nowhere fast.