Superman Returns Singer, Sequels, Originality, Vision

[Metropolis_Man]

The story was what made the difference. In STM, Clark was just becoming established as Superman. In SR Superman is coming back after a 7 year abscence after already being established. That means he has been Superman for lets say...8-9 years. Routh looks like he would've been 15 8 or 9 years ago.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong again, but Superman has been in comics for what...70 some odd years, and he doesn't age over 30 something. So, you could take that into account as well....maybe.

 

[Matt]

Reeve played a 30 year old Superman who began at 30. Routh plays a 30 year old Superman who began 5-6 years prior before leaving. Its not a difficult concept.

Very mature with the picture. Your apologist attitude is a broken record as well.

If this is a sequel why would Routh play a 30 year old Superman who left?

 

[Matt]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong again, but Superman has been in comics for what...70 some odd years, and he doesn't age over 30 something. So, you could take that into account as well....maybe.

A story in comics can take over a year to finish and encompass only a few days in the comic continuity. There is a difference.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

You doubled posted man. Thats not fair. Whys there a difference, this is comic based film. Same thing to me.

 

[Kane]

If this is a sequel why would Routh play a 30 year old Superman who left?

Because of the fact it isnt a direct sequel, its a vague one.

Theres already confirmed contradictions with the Donner origin so far. Stephan Bender's glasses wearing young Clark discovers the FOS crystal (now white) in the ship at a much younger age compared to Jeff East's character and according to the SR cards; it gives him information about his own origins and the late Krypton.

 

[Matt]

You doubled posted man. Thats not fair. Whys there a difference, this is comic based film. Same thing to me.

I've already explained the difference. A few days in a comic book can last several months or even a year.

 

[Matt]

Because of the fact it isnt a direct sequel, its a vague one.

Theres already confirmed contradictions with the Donner origin so far. Stephan Bender's glasses wearing young Clark discovers the FOS crystal (now white) in the ship at a much younger age compared to Jeff East's character and according to the SR cards; it gives him information about his own origins and the late Krypton.

Even Singer is admiting the sequel, only apologists won't.

 

[The Master]

Even Singer is admiting the sequel, only apologists won't.

Where? or When?

 

[Matt]

The thread should be on the second or third page.

 

[Kane]

You mean this:

"it puts the first film into a vague history, the second film is not in my history. its not a particularly good film, either, if you watch it again. We are referencing the first film in the designs and the detail but not over - referencing it."

 

[Metropolis_Man]

I don't think he ever admitted it to being a direct sequel. I think his words were "vauge history". Please correct me if I'm wrong, I might've missed a few parts of his interview.

 

[Venom71]

Actually, I'll be waiting for DVD thanks.

Hmm okay....so you really have no reason to post here until sometime next fall/winter after it has been released on DVD because at this point your complaining isn't going to change anything in the movie ...have a nice Spring//Summer

 

[Showtime]

Singer has said it uses STM as a vague history, he's said that the first two movies are a vague history, he has said this is Superman III, and he has said that for lack of a better word this is a sequel.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

Singer has said it uses STM as a vague history, he's said that the first two movies are a vague history, he has said this is Superman III, and he has said that for lack of a better word this is a sequel.

Good work Showtime, and thanks for clarifying that. I see now where could be said it is indeed a sequel to those movie.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Singer has said it uses STM as a vague history, he's said that the first two movies are a vague history, he has said this is Superman III, and he has said that for lack of a better word this is a sequel.

So you don't believe the blurb where he says that II has no part of his film's history? Or is that article just not legit or something?

I'm thinking that maybe they're messing with the fans to constantly keeping them (us) guessing. One guy says one thing, another something totally contradictory. That way the only way we know for sure is to see the derned movie.

If Singer came out and said II was part of his history, the fans would put the dots together and the kid thing would be a whole lot more...definite as to who he truly was.

But if the rumors were true about Jude Law playing Zod had he not turned it down, I wonder if he would play a new Zod or the Zod we have from STM and S2?

 

[Showtime]

I have said it before, he is throwing up smokescreens, I don't know what he is trying to hide. The kid, a villian, the story, who knows.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

I like Singers ways. It can be annoying, trying to figure everything out, but it keeps these up in the air.

 

[Matt]

I have said it before, he is throwing up smokescreens, I don't know what he is trying to hide. The kid, a villian, the story, who knows.

For once we agree on something! I think Singer is trying to hide the kid.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Me too..he isn`t going to ruin this surprise...

 

[Matt]

Hmm okay....so you really have no reason to post here until sometime next fall/winter after it has been released on DVD because at this point your complaining isn't going to change anything in the movie ...have a nice Spring//Summer

Yea, I'm going to though.

 

[Matt]

Me too..he isn`t going to ruin this surprise...

Suprise has been ruined for ages...and ironically, the suprise is ruining the movie.

 

[SuperDaniel]

All we have its especulation...Its not 100% sure yet...Untill i see a legimate review or read the novelization, we cant tell for sure...

 

[Whack Arnolds]

I don't really agree but nicely written Bo

Agree with my man Hunter Rider. To me, a relevant, and ORIGINAL Origin would've been a welcome way to re-intorduce Superman to the new world and new audience. A Birthright type story would've been out of this world, seeing as how Birthright is a better origin than even S:TM.


On a sidenote, is it just me? Or does Brittney's shoulder look weird? Like, not the right proportions and shape?

 

[SuperDaniel]

C`mon guys. Superman Returns is an origin film in many ways. It will feel like one. We`ll have Krypton destroyed, goes back to Smallville, Super-rescue, Lois, Luthor`s plan, etc etc etc

 

[Nightwing1977]

No, this is Donner's spin + a kid.

Sorry, but you're incorrect. If it's Donner's spin, how come the suit don't look the same like what Reeve wore? How did Perry White grew up all of a suddenly? He was very small in the originals films. How did Lex Luthor look really bad for real when he didn't in Donner's spin?