Showtime,
Why heck can't Superman have one? I mean, how long has the character been around and in love and in a relationship with Lois? You're telling me that the idea of a Super-son didn't cross anyone's mind, EVER?
And about Lex, I don't think using Lex cost the film or the sequel. I still maintain that it's the revelance of the character itself. But again, you have to take into account the long hiatus of the character on screen.
Put it this way, if Singer did a new version of the origin of Superman for today's audiences, who do you think should've been the first villian? Who do you think WB would've gone with regardless?
No matter how you look at it, when you say Superman, you pretty much automatically think Lex and Lois. And because of that hiatus, it made sense to bring back his arch nemesis for Superman's triumphant return to the silver screen. Sure, it's playing it safe but it's playing it smart too.
We've established that. Now, it's time to get down to business and I have full confidence that Singer will and wouldn've done so in the sequel. Again, he did the same with X2 after X-Men. You don't think he'd follow his own example?
The problem with Superman Returns is that it was so tragic, Superman was presented as terribly alone and doomed to remain alone, he was shown making decisions that cost him his happiness and almost cost him his life.
He has a son - but he can't really be with him.
He loves Lois - but he can't really be with her
He had the guidance and wisdom of his father in the Fortress - but he can't do that any more, he has no sanctuary, the Fortress was violated by Lex.
He decides to leave earth to check out the remains of Krypton -- yet Lois somehow doesn't know the amazing news that Krypton's remains have been discovered. She also is carrying his child, yet neither she nor Richard White seem to figure that out. It would be pretty obvious to her and to Richard who's kid it was.
Then Superman comes back from the mission he had to go on... only to find that his love has moved on, his child has a new dad, and Lex is out of prison.
There is nothing uplifting in this story to give any warmth or happiness to the character, there is no 'will he, won't he' with Lois because her life is sorted out, he is once again terribly alone.
It's not a happy experience - for Superman or for the viewer. This was not really a superhero movie, it didn't have the hero factor necessary to make it a good rousing movie that showed acceptance, happiness, solid moral values and a rousing ending. 'I'll be around' isn't enough to end the movie on, not when Lex is still free, Lois is with Richard, his son is with another family, his Fortress has been raided and all the crystals linking him to his father and his origins have been stolen.
All those have to be explored in a sequel. We can't have Richard or Jason conveniently dying or being somehow pushed aside, that's not fair on the characters or the viewer. We have Lex stuck on an island somewhere, knowing the location of the Fortress, we have Superman with no links to his father for guidance, no place to seek solace or wisdom. Yet we have to include Lois, Richard and Jason somehow. We can't just write them off. But where is the hope for Superman, where is the chemistry with Lois that might mean he tells her everything, that might mean they are finally together? We can't have that, because good, upstanding Richard is there and she plainly deserves the stability of that relationship.
SR may have made a nice character drama, an interesting study of tragic love and loss, but it didn't feel right to put Superman into that setting. It was like a crazy 'what if' story. Including Richard and Jason was probably a mistake, and showing Superman abandoning Lois in that fashion was also a mistake.
It's pretty obvious that a sequel based on SR is difficult because of having to include those elements and try to take them forward. No doubt Warner, Harris and Dougherty struggled to agree on a direction for the next movie that wasn't bogged down by these various plot points from the first movie.
