Superman Returns Will you atleast have the dignity to call this film sequel

[NotFadeAway]

I would like to clarify that this thread is not about how you feel about Singer's vision for Superman, for or against. None of that matters here. What does matter, is that sense day one of Singer and co., I have listened to people use the terms Vague history and requel anytime this film is accused of being a sequel. Well, Im here to say that is IS infact a sequel. It takes the same storylines, characterizations, and backstory from the original Donner film, regardless of Superman 2. It has Marlon Brando as Jor-El, and Glenn Ford in a digitally mastered photo with Brandon Routh. This film is a sequel, it has all the elements of a sequel. Have some dignity and acknowledge that. No more " Vague History " talk. It doesn't matter how you feel about the film, love it or hate it, but don't use that phrase anymore, it is insulting to the intellegience. Phrases like that and requel are a copout, nothing more.

P.S. I changed my sig to reflect my feelings.

 

[PunisherPoster]

I thought this was intended to take place after Superman II. Is that no longer the general consensus?

 

[Venom71]

Nah its vague history...taking some elements from the Donner movie(s) but not everything...Metropolis is not New York, we see a very young clark learning his powers...Cark wearing the glasses when he is younger.

 

[MoreCowbell]

I would like to clarify that this thread is not about how you feel about Singer's vision for Superman, for or against. None of that matters here. What does matter, is that sense day one of Singer and co., I have listened to people use the terms Vague history and requel anytime this film is accused of being a sequel. Well, Im here to say that is IS infact a sequel. It takes the same storylines, characterizations, and backstory from the original Donner film, regardless of Superman 2. It has Marlon Brando as Jor-El, and Glenn Ford in a digitally mastered photo with Brandon Routh. This film is a sequel, it has all the elements of a sequel. Have some dignity and acknowledge that. No more " Vague History " talk. It doesn't matter how you feel about the film, love it or hate it, but don't use that phrase anymore, it is insulting to the intellegience. Phrases like that and requel are a copout, nothing more.

P.S. I changed my sig to reflect my feelings.

OK?

 

[Secret_Riddle]

i think of it as a loose sequal.

 

[nosebleed.]

i think of it as a loose sequal.

cool...does she have a sister?

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

it is insulting to the intellegience.

LOL

Seriously, no one knows what it exactly is. Singer and the writers don't seem to even know. BUT I wouldn't say it is a sequel because it certainly doesn't fit in with your standard sequel prerequisite. I like to think it's what the James Bond films are in relation to each other.

 

[Superman \S/]

I still don't think it's sequel. From what it's been called since SR even started filming, i'd say it's vague history.

 

[Michael Corleone]

EDIT: I'm going with Solid Snake on this one.

 

[Michael Corleone]

In all honesty when I think about what it should be called...How about a Superman movie? Cuz that's all I've been really worried about. Not the vocabulary and definition of the damn film. There are more important things to worry about then complain about how fans classify the film.

 

[rock_on]

What do you mean by having the "dignity" to call the film a sequel? How does "dignity" play a role?? This movie will be the first Superman movie that I will seen in theatres and hot damn, it will be a moment to remember.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

I for one would like SR to not be associated with the previous films. I despise the old films. Period.

 

[Tron5000]

Thanks for the update on your signature. I'll be sure to mark the anniversary on the 2007 calendar.

Will you at least have the DIGNITY to post this in a thread in which it belongs, rather than starting a new one (which you do all, annoyingly, all the time)?

 

[vanillacyke]

I have to call it a sequel. As long as I do Superman 3 and 4 NEVER HAPPENED.

 

[DorkyFresh]

i'll call a sequel but only to simplify a conversation. if the conversation gets deep then i'll stop calling it a sequel since there ARE changes made between S:TM and SR.

the reason i think Singer saying that S:TM is a vague history to SR is because Singer IS making his own Superman, it's just that S:TM is heavily influencing HIS Superman because his Superman has parts of S:TM in it. not to mention if magazines, websites, radio stations, etc. are going to explain Superman Returns, they can't say it's a sequel because it's not a sequel to Superman 4 and they can't say that it's a sequel to S:TM because it really isn't.

it's close enough to be able to classify it as a sequel, but there's enough changed that it's really different version based on the same concept...

 

[DvilDog]

Sorry venom you know I think your alright but its not a sequel. You cant call a movie a sequel when its only taking certain parts from a movie.

 

[J.Howlett]

After reading the novel, in many ways, it is a sequel. But, it's also somewhat of a restart as well.

You can't help but think of it as a restart because the actors are different. And yet, because the story refers to so many events that took place in the first film and some in the second film, you have to see it as a sequel as well.

It's really up to the viewer. A newer generation will look at it as a fresh start. The older fans will look at it as a sequel/quasi-remake.

And in the end, it doesn't really matter. It's a very good, character story.

 

[The Sage]

LOL

Seriously, no one knows what it exactly is. Singer and the writers don't seem to even know. BUT I wouldn't say it is a sequel because it certainly doesn't fit in with your standard sequel prerequisite. I like to think it's what the James Bond films are in relation to each other.

What he said.

The audience isn't going to care. They'll see it just as a Superman film.

 

[DorkyFresh]

most nonfans will consider this a sequel just because 1) Supes is Returning 2) Routh resembles Reeve and 3) the tie-ins from S:TM

but i still consider it a full sequel. like SolidSnake said, i consider this to be like James Bond...another story about Superman.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

How bout a MODERN SEQUEL?

That sounds good.

 

[Captain Villa]

Are the Bond movies successive sequels ? No, they are stand alone adventures.

Same here.

Move on.

 

[davejames]

The number one clue that SR isn't a direct sequel? The age of the characters. If Singer intended this to be a sequel, Superman and Lois would be in their mid-30s, not early 20s.

 

[Captain Villa]

The number one clue that SR isn't a direct sequel? The age of the characters. If Singer intended this to be a sequel, Superman and Lois would be in their mid-30s, not early 20s.

Yeah and Casino Royale has James Bond as a raw recuit to MI6.

Some people need to suspend chronology for the sake of fantasy.

 

[Sub-Zero]

i see it as another story arc. like in comic books. stuff happened in the past but aren't directly referenced.

 

[TheBat812]

vague sequel. It doesn't use direct story plot in this movie, but rather the origin, and the basic relationships established (SUperman and Lois in love, Supes and Lex are enemies, with Lex having been in jail).