I saw the movie awhile ago and personally I enjoyed it. This was THE movie I wanted to see this year because Superman is my favorite comic book hero and that I had wanted a new movie to come out for some time. Getting all the bias out of the way, there were things I didn't particularly care for in the movie: Lex's plot being too similar to the first movie, the kryptonite in New Krypton when Superman was flying it out into space, and the fact that the Kryptonite didn't kill Superman when he was stabbed with it. But I also had some things I loved: The plane rescue, the part where Lex's cronies beat the crap out of Superman (one of the most powerful scenes IMO in the whole movie), and Superman reciting the same speech to the kid at the end (again with the goosebumps). But I would say that the biggest impact the movie had on me was that I stuck to a central theme (for the most part).
Life. Living. Being Born again. However you want to put it.
Think about it. Superman returns to Earth after leaving for some time. When he comes back, he is born again into the minds of the people. He becomes the hero he used to be in the minds of the citizens of Metropolis. Also, Lex's own orchestrated fortunes allow him to be born again in a sense that he now has the knowledge and funding to once again gain the precious land he desired, at the cost of destroying the US as we know it. The kid himself signifies life in that he's the part of Superman that was left behind with Lois, and whom Superman himself finds out who the boy really is. The creation of life between Lois and himself.
But all that got me thinking. Why so cliche' at times with the story? Why a direction that served as a mirror (in most aspects) to the very first Superman movie? I began to think that for most people, it would be hard to write a restart (not reboot) story without pulling alot of familiar elements and injecting some controversial ideas to form it into a centralized theme. But, I feel that it sets up well for a sequel in that they can tackle a theme on the total opposite of the spectrum.
Death.
I remember reading the Death of Superman arc in comics, and found them to be some of my favorite of the entire series. Introducing a villain in the next movie, who not unlike Doomsday, would force Superman to resort to a force he hasn't had to previously in the current medium (movies) I think would be a brilliant way to take the franchise. In the comics when Doomsday appeared he tore up the JLA like it was nothing. Superman himself even told Lois at one point that to defeat Doomsday he had to be every bit as brutal and relentless as he. It could show a side of Superman that we haven't seen in the movies (aside from the Bad Superman). They could have the result of the comic (Superman and Doomsday killing each other) or even alter it a bit to have supes live or whatever, but I think it could be done and done well. Even with Singer.
And the last thing I thought about was Singer. Sure, the movie has gotten it's fair share of criticism and applause. But I see this movie more like the first movie in the X-Men series, in that it introduces us to his vision of Superman and leaves something to build on. Sure it has it's warts and all, but it's a springboard for more to build on.
I apologize for the long post, but I just thought I would share. Cheers.
t: 
