Superman Returns What could have made Superman Returns better

[Micromind]

Up to a point, SR was careful not to explicitly contradict (many of) the events in STM and SII. So if someone had seen all three, they were free to infer certain connections and continuity. But, ultimately, SR is a stand-alone movie. Imo, it’s best viewed that way; and it should certainly be judged that way.

Personally, I didn’t care for the memory-erasing-kiss in SII (speaking of invasions of privacy). Do I need to carry that "issue" over to SR? Not at all. There’s nothing in SR that remotely suggests Lois is suffering from a mysterious amnesia.

[FONT=&quot]I[/FONT]ndeed, there’s not much about the SR narrative that requires STM and SII (25+ year-old movies) as homework.

I agree, the movie (SR) assumes that the viewers have already seen the STM and SM -II, but it is a vague sequel, which means that only certain selected events happened, additionally some events happened off screen too, between the events of Donner movies and start of SR.

My interpretation is that Lois and Supes had an intimate relationship, and Lois does not know the true secret identity of Superman (that he is the reporter Clark Kent.) Why is she ignorant ? memory wipe or Superman never reveled his true identity ? It is never explained, I think that it is latter explanation.

 

[Nevaratoiel]

What I don't get... and correct me if I'm wrong... Singer had a story he wanted to tell, and he had a story in his head. So he and WB agreed to do the story he had set out to do. So he made the film. And then the film came out and it didn't do so well, or at least not as well as they had wanted. So they WB technically took their hands off the film, and decided they did not want any part of that merchandise anymore. Suddenly they did not like the franchise very much any more, while they agreed, and apparently liked it when Singer presented his ideas, to making the film. I'm confused...

Then again, these days it's about making money, and not so much about making good films. Yes, and I know 'good' is debatable. I don't like today's world... not one bit.

 

[LL2K2]

Then again, these days it's about making money, and not so much about making good films. Yes, and I know 'good' is debatable. I don't like today's world... not one bit.

Indeed. Especially when films like Ghost Rider, which had an average BO but got horrible reviews, and Green Lantern*, which was an all-out disappointment critically and financially, get sequels. Yet SR, which had good (but not great) BO and got decent reviews, got the shaft. (*Green Lantern is only rumored for a sequel at this time.)

Here are the comparative figures from Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes:

Ghost Rider


Tomatometer: 27% (ROTTEN)
Budget: $110 million
Domestic Gross: ~$116 million
WW Gross: ~$229 million

Green Lantern

Tomatometer: 27% (ROTTEN)
Budget: $200 million
Domestic Gross: ~$117 million
WW Gross: ~$220 million

Superman Returns

Tomatometer: 76% (CERTIFIED FRESH)
Budget: per BOM, $270 million; per Singer interview, $209 million
Domestic Gross: $200 million
WW Gross: $391 million

 

[Micromind]

Indeed. Especially when films like Ghost Rider, which had an average BO but got horrible reviews, and Green Lantern*, which was an all-out disappointment critically and financially, get sequels. Yet SR, which had good (but not great) BO and got decent reviews, got the shaft. (*Green Lantern is only rumored for a sequel at this time.)

Green Lantern is not as bad a movie as Ghost Rider is, despite what critics and tomatometer ratings indicate.

Green Lantern is Not likely to get any sequel.

Here are the comparative figures from Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes:

Ghost Rider


Tomatometer: 27% (ROTTEN)
Budget: $110 million
Domestic Gross: ~$116 million
WW Gross: ~$229 million

Green Lantern

Tomatometer: 27% (ROTTEN)
Budget: $200 million
Domestic Gross: ~$117 million
WW Gross: ~$220 million

Superman Returns

Tomatometer: 76% (CERTIFIED FRESH)
Budget: per BOM, $270 million; per Singer interview, $209 million
Domestic Gross: $200 million
WW Gross: $391 million

WB did gave a chance to Singer to present an out line for sequel to SR, and apparently Singer had two different rough approaches, which failed to impress the execs at WB, after that when WB were thinking of rebooting the Superman, they again approached Singer and gave him the option of a reboot, which he (apparently ) refused.

There were many other factors that contributed to sequel not getting the green light, one of them was retirement of Alan Horn and Jeff Robinov taking over as the president who wanted more action oriented movie. Then there was writer's strike, Singer taking too much time with his "Valkyrie" movie project, script writers not knowing what to do with Jason.

Finally all the momentum was lost.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Also, you forget that Superman removed Lois' memories, so she doesn't remember ever having... um... intercourse with him. They could have explained it a bit more in the film, but Singer chose not to. Probably because the fans knew what happened in Superman II. Maybe Richard came into the picture around the time Superman disappeared and maybe they thought Jason was born early. All these things could've happened. But it was never properly explained. Maybe they should've.

Which is why I said it should have been explained BETTER! Kate Bosworth stated that she believes Lois knows that Jason is Superman's son. There are also people out there who speculate that the kiss in S:II, didn't erase what happened between Superman and Lois, just the Clark connection; seeing as how SR ignores Superman 3 and 4, it is plausible. And imo if people felt Superman was a stalker and peeping tom for Xraying Lois' house once, then I am allowed to say that Lois either a) not knowing who the father of her baby is or b) knowing and lying about it, makes her appear a little skanky. Best case scenario is that Richard came a long when Lois was already visibly pregnant and has been in Jason's life since he was born, thereby having Jason call him daddy.
I still don't think Brandon was that good as Clark or Superman, but like I and many others have said he wasn't given a lot to do. Christopher was allowed to give his character a personality, something Brandon was prevented from doing by the director and writers.

 

[Dr.]

There are also people out there who speculate that the kiss in S:II, didn't erase what happened between Superman and Lois, just the Clark connection; seeing as how SR ignores Superman 3 and 4, it is plausible. And imo if people felt Superman was a stalker and peeping tom for Xraying Lois' house once, then I am allowed to say that Lois either a) not knowing who the father of her baby is or b) knowing and lying about it, makes her appear a little skanky.

While the details weren’t always spelled out, the basic backstory of SR was clear enough. Supes and Lois had (at least) one intimate encounter that resulted in a pregnancy. But before Supes (and possibly Lois) was aware of this, he left on his Krypton voyage. Subsequently, Lois and Jason and Richard became a family. Those are the story elements (some explicit, others deducible) that the SR text provides. What’s not there is any hint of amnesia or any other suggestion that Lois doesn’t know Jason’s true paternity (quite the contrary). Trying to fit SII continuity into SR’s is not only unnecessary, it doesn’t actually work. Take SR as a stand-alone movie.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

I don't think there's been one time in the film where they actually said he had been gone five years. I just heard 'a long time'. So there is no mention he has been gone for an actual 5 years.

Martha Kent on the farm with Clark: "5 years...if you're father was alive, he never would have let you go".
So it was mentioned and I'm sure by more than just Martha. And even if it was not mentioned in the movie, the creators of said movie have stated it's been 5yrs, so why would we ignore them?

 

[El Payaso]

Martha Kent on the farm with Clark: "5 years...if you're father was alive, he never would have let you go".
So it was mentioned and I'm sure by more than just Martha. And even if it was not mentioned in the movie, the creators of said movie have stated it's been 5yrs, so why would we ignore them?

Martha said it. It was there.