Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is superman returns better than superman with Christopher Reeves?

Nope.

Other than less Malboro product placement... no.

It's at least the second best Superman film.

Not even close.

Technically....Superman Returns is better in the sense that it has no major plot hole. The original Superman has one of the biggest plot hole in sci-fi-fantasy history.

If Superman can spin the world backwards to rescue Lois...why can't he spin it back enough to stop Luthor from launching the missile? See, that's where the original fails.

So in a way Superman Returns does beat the original.

Which one is the one with Chris Reeves?

Superman The Movie?

I am going to buy it in a litttle while.

It depends on how you look at it. The movie itself was definately better. Its my favorite. Routh did fine, so did Singer. It just didnt capture the feel of the first film. I think they should have started over like in Batman Begins.

But watch Superman the movie and then Superman Returns

I liked it far better then the Reeves films, which, in a lot of ways, made no logical sense at all.

It's Chris Reeve - not Reeves.

You're confusing him with George Reeves.

Routh!

Routh is our new man, yes!

Absolutely this is better. Back in 1978, Richard Donner made the world believe that a man could fly. Superman: The Move, and all the the first four, succeeded there. But Superman Returns can finally show Superman flying right. The technology exists now to show Superman as they should - phenomenally.

IN MY OPINION, Brandon Routh is a better Superman. I don't take anything away from Christopher Reeve, but the modern Superman is more mysterious, as he should be. Being Clark Kent is more painful for him than dealing with kryptonite.

Honestly, I don't understand why he wouldn't be Superman all the time.

Originally posted by Slowhand
Absolutely this is better. Back in 1978, Richard Donner made the world believe that a man could fly. Superman: The Move, and all the the first four, succeeded there. But Superman Returns can finally show Superman flying right. The technology exists now to show Superman as they should - phenomenally.

IN MY OPINION, Brandon Routh is a better Superman. I don't take anything away from Christopher Reeve, but the modern Superman is more mysterious, as he should be. Being Clark Kent is more painful for him than dealing with kryptonite.

Honestly, I don't understand why he wouldn't be Superman all the time.

So, in your opinion the addition of the CGI flight scenes made the Singer film superior? In a word...no. Go back and watch Superman: The Movie. There's more real feeling and epic yearning in the first 30 minutes than in the entirety of Superman Returns.

As an aside, Routh can't hold Chris Reeve's jock as an actor in general or as Superman in particular.

Hmm....

Well its no secret that I loved this film, and am one of its supporters.

Its definately on par with I and II, and feels like the next movie in a trilogy/series. (I say series since this one is supposedly the first of a new trilogy)


While the movies tone/story match that of Superman the movie, it's just as enjoyable to me as Superman II.

In the End:

Superman: The Movie
Superman Returns
Superman II

I found no evident problem's with Routh's Superman, only I feel as many do that Chris succeeded in playing the role Clark Kent on a level Routh hasn't. Subtle things like Reeve's change in posture, speech, etc. helped to compel the viewers into believing they were two different characters. If Bryan wished to do the same with SR as the previous films I feel this should have been a definite goal within the film.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Superman: The Movie
Superman Returns
Superman II

Routh is not just better because of the new technology, he's body is perfect...the arms and legs gives him that real Superman look. He's even better than all the comics.

I don't need you to tell me what to do. I've seen Superman I and II a hundred times if I've seen them once. I know what they mean to me and that's not as much as Superman Returns does.

At least Superman looks like he's flying now without my suspension of disbelief. It's easy to see the cheap mattes and blue screen work from the '70s and '80s.

Does this alone make Superman Returns a better film? Obviously no. But Brandon Routh is a better Superman. At least he's not smirking all the time. Superman is a god, whether we all like it or not, and this film portrayed him as such.

Originally posted by Slowhand
I don't need you to tell me what to do. I've seen Superman I and II a hundred times if I've seen them once. I know what they mean to me and that's not as much as Superman Returns does.

At least Superman looks like he's flying now without my suspension of disbelief. It's easy to see the cheap mattes and blue screen work from the '70s and '80s.

Does this alone make Superman Returns a better film? Obviously no. But Brandon Routh is a better Superman. At least he's not smirking all the time. Superman is a god, whether we all like it or not, and this film portrayed him as such.

Wow. Easy there, fella. Didn't really want to delve into your belief system there.

Cant say yet since I havent seen it yet.However I will be seeing it this saturday and will have my answer for sure after the weekend.

Originally posted by chase el
It depends on how you look at it. The movie itself was definately better. Its my favorite. Routh did fine, so did Singer. It just didnt capture the feel of the first film. I think they should have started over like in Batman Begins.

But watch Superman the movie and then Superman Returns

Personally I wish they hadnt bothered with another Superman movie thats why I have taken as long as I have to see the movie.But I promised someone here I would see the movie since he wants me to so badly so I will this weekend.I wish they hadnt bothered with another Superman movie because unlike Batman,another superman movie wasnt needed.All the Batman movies that had been made till Batman Begins came along last summer were all crap so Batman Begins was totally needed to do the comicbook justice.Superman however already had two great films made so it wasnt necessary to make another superman movie.If they want superman on the big screen,they should just bring it back the first two movies to the big screen again.

Originally posted by Slowhand
Absolutely this is better. Back in 1978, Richard Donner made the world believe that a man could fly. Superman: The Move, and all the the first four, succeeded there. But Superman Returns can finally show Superman flying right. The technology exists now to show Superman as they should - phenomenally.

IN MY OPINION, Brandon Routh is a better Superman. I don't take anything away from Christopher Reeve, but the modern Superman is more mysterious, as he should be. Being Clark Kent is more painful for him than dealing with kryptonite.

Honestly, I don't understand why he wouldn't be Superman all the time.

Oh please give me a break..They set the standard for special effects back then for todays movies and still meausure up to most movies special effects IN THIS ERA..He WAS shown flying right back then.Whenever I watch those movies today,they STILL make my mouth come wide open.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Oh please give me a break..They set the standard for special effects back then for todays movies and still meausure up to most movies special effects IN THIS ERA..He WAS shown flying right back then.Whenever I watch those movies today,they STILL make my mouth come wide open.

I disagree, I love the film by all means but you can't actually tell me the special effects impress you....

with the scenes of him flying,yes they blow me away.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Personally I wish they hadnt bothered with another Superman movie thats why I have taken as long as I have to see the movie.But I promised someone here I would see the movie since he wants me to so badly so I will this weekend.I wish they hadnt bothered with another Superman movie because unlike Batman,another superman movie wasnt needed.All the Batman movies that had been made till Batman Begins came along last summer were all crap so Batman Begins was totally needed to do the comicbook justice.Superman however already had two great films made so it wasnt necessary to make another superman movie.If they want superman on the big screen,they should just bring it back the first two movies to the big screen again.

To quote what I said about you in another thread -

"Once again you have your head up your ass - again."

And again.

You must like the view from there. It reflects the quality of your posts.

Originally posted by steverules
Is superman returns better than superman with Christopher Reeves?

There IS only one Superman - Christopher Reeve. Brandon Routh is a boy, painfully inexperienced and totally out of his depth. Especially compared to Christopher Reeve, who could convey more meaning by lifting an eyebrow or letting a faint smile curve his lips, than Routh was able to do in the entire movie. Subtlety is not exactly his strong point.

Ask me again in ten years, when Routh has grown up. Maybe then he will be able to give a tenth of the depth that Reeve had naturally.

He's been asked to imitate for stupid fans not for smart fan like me.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
So, in your opinion the addition of the CGI flight scenes made the Singer film superior? In a word...no. Go back and watch Superman: The Movie. There's more real feeling and epic yearning in the first 30 minutes than in the entirety of Superman Returns.

As an aside, Routh can't hold Chris Reeve's jock as an actor in general or as Superman in particular.

While I didn't hate the movie like you seemed to, I agree with your assesment of the 1st movie.

The 1st Superman movie is a true classic and I haven't seen any modern Superhero movie top it...It had a certain soul to it... not spidey, not bats, not hulk, or FF.

Superman 2 while having some hockey moments was a very fun movie to watch.

I think SMR was all about a set up for a sequel of some type, like Singers X-men, I believe the 2nd will be an improvement over his original.

I do what Singer does...I go back to check, that's all I do. Those movies are the perfect bed time story. Actually, I describe them as books not movies...please cover your eyes! SR is a movie.

Originally posted by steverules
Is superman returns better than superman with Christopher Reeves?

No. and its not better than Superman 2 either... Routh isnt half the Superman Reeve was. To this day nobody has captured the contradictory natures of Clark and Superman so perfectly...

and Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor... nuff said...

Superman Returns ranks along side Superman 3 and 4 for me. I thought it was a horrible movie.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
There IS only one Superman - Christopher Reeve. Brandon Routh is a boy, painfully inexperienced and totally out of his depth. Especially compared to Christopher Reeve, who could convey more meaning by lifting an eyebrow or letting a faint smile curve his lips, than Routh was able to do in the entire movie. Subtlety is not exactly his strong point.

Ask me again in ten years, when Routh has grown up. Maybe then he will be able to give a tenth of the depth that Reeve had naturally.



I felt "safe" with Reeve's Superman...he truly acted like the icon that he was meant to be. Routh's Superman seemed to sulk and beg for sympathy. He almost felt sorta shady, instead of the "boy scout."

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Cant say yet since I havent seen it yet.However I will be seeing it this saturday and will have my answer for sure after the weekend.

Jesus H. Christ.
You have been on a non-stop binge of negative postings for weeks now, since the film opened -

- and you tell us you HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT YET??????

JUST WHO ARE YOU TO BE SO CRITICAL?

See it - then criticize as much as you like, if that's how you feel.

Listen yo, a laptop is better than 1 and 2. Wait for year 2009

Yeah Christhoper Reeve, is Superman...but Brandon Routh did a very nice job portraying him, but he also gave his own uniqueness to the film. I think Superman Returns is a lot less painful to watch. Although I love the first 2 films don't get me wrong. I just don't believe hes flying. I don't know...but I will always love the classic ones, but I'd say that I did enjoy Superman Returns more.
Brandon looks great as him too. I don't think he looks to young, hes very mature and his voice is deep.

Originally posted by .Dance_Inside.
Yeah Christhoper Reeve, is Superman...but Brandon Routh did a very nice job portraying him, but he also gave his own uniqueness to the film. I think Superman Returns is a lot less painful to watch. Although I love the first 2 films don't get me wrong. I just don't believe hes flying. I don't know...but I will always love the classic ones, but I'd say that I did enjoy Superman Returns more.
Brandon looks great as him too. I don't think he looks to young, hes very mature and his voice is deep.

Dance_Inside, I'm disqualifying you from any further discussion on Brandon Routh due to your obvious romantic attachment...

NO!

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Dance_Inside, I'm disqualifying you from any further discussion on Brandon Routh due to your obvious romantic attachment...

Although Brandon's butt looks rather spectacular in those tight TIGHT blue tight, and when he's lifting up the New Krypton Continent, and his abs are rippling, and his face looks like it was formed by gods!
Thats besides the point.
I love Superman dearly, I have since I was a kid, just because I think Brandon is a good looking man doesn't mean I don't respect the Superman movies and anthology GEEZ!

Originally posted by .Dance_Inside.
Although Brandon's butt looks rather spectacular in those tight TIGHT blue tight, and when he's lifting up the New Krypton Continent, and his abs are rippling, and his face looks like it was formed by gods!
Thats besides the point.
I love Superman dearly, I have since I was a kid, just because I think Brandon is a good looking man doesn't mean I don't respect the Superman movies and anthology GEEZ!

No need to explain.

But, Dance_Inside...incidentally, you do know that some of those bulges are CGI, right? Especially those bulges underneath the underoos...

NO!
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e290/Cillianmissexy69/BTS_098.jpg
done and done.

looks real to me
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e290/Cillianmissexy69/Promo_017.jpg

Originally posted by .Dance_Inside.
NO!
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e290/Cillianmissexy69/BTS_098.jpg
done and done.

looks real to me
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e290/Cillianmissexy69/Promo_017.jpg

Does Routh know you're following him to his gym and photographing him?

I hide behind the treadmill...

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
No need to explain.

But, Dance_Inside...incidentally, you do know that some of those bulges are CGI, right? Especially those bulges underneath the underoos...

Nuh-uh. It's the other way around, remember?

The flap from the studio earlier this year - they were concerned that Routh's "package" inside the trunks looked too big, and they might use photoshop to bring down his "bulge" a little.

lol...

but seriously, they used cgi to reduce his bulge didnt they?

i think routh looks too young, considering the story picks up after superman 2 then i think they should have gotten someone older...

as a young superman i think he'd be ok...

(the previous post was posted while i was writing mine, so apologies if im just echoing the previous comment...)

I wonder whether the whole age thing for Routh and Bosworth (looking younger than they are), isn't just some in-joke about comic characters in general. How, no matter how many years go, and all the adventures they have ( including having and raising children), they still look the same. Superman will always look under 30, like all other characters.

Originally posted by roughrider
Nuh-uh. It's the other way around, remember?

The flap from the studio earlier this year - they were concerned that Routh's "package" inside the trunks looked too big, and they might use photoshop to bring down his "bulge" a little.

ooo

Oh geez, roughrider. Now you've got Dance_Inside all hot and bothered. Now she'll probably be following Routh inside the locker room after he finishes his workouts.

done annnnnnnnnd DONE!
I'll definitely be bringing my film crew in there, then I'll follow him home, and pretend that my car needs a jumpstart so He'll stop at the side of road, I'll tell him to go to the trunk of my car and get the equipment. THEN BAM! I'll close the trunk on him and so on and so forth...
Is that a little weird? Cuz I'm not sure if thats the best approach BUT it works like a charm

yeah I'm a little weird in the head...sorry

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Dance_Inside, I'm disqualifying you from any further discussion on Brandon Routh due to your obvious romantic attachment...

She loves to love it; you love to hate it. You're even.

Originally posted by .Dance_Inside.
done annnnnnnnnd DONE!
I'll definitely be bringing my film crew in there, then I'll follow him home, and pretend that my car needs a jumpstart so He'll stop at the side of road, I'll tell him to go to the trunk of my car and get the equipment. THEN BAM! I'll close the trunk on him and so on and so forth...
Is that a little weird? Cuz I'm not sure if thats the best approach BUT it works like a charm

yeah I'm a little weird in the head...sorry


Oh...did I mention my sister has been talking to Brandon Routh over the phone?



I couldn't believe my ears either. She works for a company that handles important clients all over North America - publicity, special requests & arrangements etc. She casually told me one day how she was talking with him on & off about about trips he was taking, any requests he had; she didn't realize who he was, until the movie was about to come out!!

Said he sounds like a very nice man.

OMG! I hope she tell him what I said lol jk

but thats so cool...what a lucky duck

Originally posted by roughrider
I wonder whether the whole age thing for Routh and Bosworth (looking younger than they are), isn't just some in-joke about comic characters in general. How, no matter how many years go, and all the adventures they have ( including having and raising children), they still look the same. Superman will always look under 30, like all other characters.

I doubt any of the creative (and i use that word loosely) staff are that intelligent...

You should got to www.bluetights.net, the website with all the video journals of Singer, and see how much development was put into the film.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You should got to www.bluetights.net, the official website of Singer, and see how much development was put into the film.

I did regularly, i watched all the webdocs too...

And you thought the film had no creative or intelligent people working on it?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
And you thought the film had no creative or intelligent people working on it?

Dude, seriously, i was joking, but if you want me to be serious...

Singer has made good movies in the past, but i don't rate him at all when it comes to Superhero Movies...

The visual effects guys, as far as i'm concerned, deserve oscars, and i genuinely mean that, damn near perfect...

Screenwriters? Nope... Costume design? Nope... Casting? Nope...

I'm sure there are plenty of people who are good at thier jobs, but the ones at the top, the ones who have the most responsibility? I think they could have done a lot better...

Fair enough.
























I disagree of course, but still, fair enough.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Fair enough.
























I disagree of course, but still, fair enough.

lol, i can deal with that...

Originally posted by pr1983
lol, i can deal with that...

OK. Where did you get that signature?

I wanna see the whole picture!!!

Originally posted by pr1983
The visual effects guys, as far as i'm concerned, deserve oscars, and i genuinely mean that, damn near perfect...

Screenwriters? Nope... Costume design? Nope... Casting? Nope...

I'm sure there are plenty of people who are good at thier jobs, but the ones at the top, the ones who have the most responsibility? I think they could have done a lot better...

Testify!

No but seriously, I agree with every single detail.

I throughly enjoyed Superman Returns, I honestly didn't think I would

A few thing caught my eye (and ear) that I didnt like but it was one the better movies I have seen this summer

I did as well, but a handful of things prevented the whole film overall from being one of the greatest for me...

Originally posted by roughrider
OK. Where did you get that signature?

I wanna see the whole picture!!!

Click the pic to see the full pic, pic pic pic...

Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
Testify!

No but seriously, I agree with every single detail.

Phew, i thought i was the only one...

I see it as this, they seem very similar, although clark in the original seemed extremely dorky, but in the comics he never gave that impression as over the top as reeve shown it.

That kind of bumbling character is why most of the youth here in england think this new superman is the same and dont wanna see it because it's "cheesy" which comparing the two, the original was VERY cheesy but worked back then, but hell no would it work now.

The youth would be the deciding factor for this new one, and most who have gone, i know, have said its really good, not as "cheesy" or boring(mostly due to the dated effects i'll admit) and is a lot more emotional than the original.

All in all I'd say they equal eachother out in overall quality of the films.

9/10 for both generously putting it or 8/10 for both if i want to be critical over both of them.

Originally posted by pr1983
Click the pic to see the full pic, pic pic pic...

Omigoddroolio Ed Benes; he and Frank Cho can sure draw females. I'll be keeping this little pic, yessir

Originally posted by roughrider
Originally posted by pr1983
Click the pic to see the full pic, pic pic pic...

Omigoddroolio Ed Benes; he and Frank Cho can sure draw females. I'll be keeping this little pic, yessir

lol... look at the other ed benes stuff... awesome stuff... theres a mary jane that isnt exactly pg 13...

In terms of movie making Superman Returns is better than the originals imo. But the originals (at least the first two) are classics. To me the Chris Reeve versions were more comedic and fun-loving, but as i think it was Time magazine said (maybe it was somewhere else) Superman Returns "takes this stuff seriously." Maybe too serious for some, but for me I say it's about time the man of steel was taken seriously.

Originally posted by 113
In terms of movie making Superman Returns is better than the originals imo. But the originals (at least the first two) are classics. To me the Chris Reeve versions were more comedic and fun-loving, but as i think it was Time magazine said (maybe it was somewhere else) Superman Returns "takes this stuff seriously." Maybe too serious for some, but for me I say it's about time the man of steel was taken seriously.

You think he was taken seriously?

Singer made it a point to emulate the old movies...

I'm sorry but i don't see SR as being very serious at all... its as much a family movie as the reeve ones imo...

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Technically....Superman Returns is better in the sense that it has no major plot hole. The original Superman has one of the biggest plot hole in sci-fi-fantasy history.

If Superman can spin the world backwards to rescue Lois...why can't he spin it back enough to stop Luthor from launching the missile? See, that's where the original fails.

So in a way Superman Returns does beat the original.


Who's to say he didnt? There wasnt anything showing that he didnt do exactly that. Or maybe he just wanted to change history as little as possible given the warning Jorel gave him. Or then again maybe no one other than lois died so there was no point in going back further than he did.
SR has bigger plot holes than you can imagine. Picking up a Kryptonite island? Flying to the created island KNOWING lex would be there KNOWing lex knows his weakness, KNOWING SOMEONE HAD BEEN AT HIS FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE AN TOOK STUFF an NOT PREPARING FOR IT?!? The biggest most retarded plot hole ever conceived!!!!!!
He has telescopic vision, he has x-ray vision, the only thing that can block it is lead. If he sees a compartment of lead on lex from 10 miles away, kryptonite, HFS! He should of went an got a radiation suit a la the cartoon, HFS!
Being found floatin the water with kryptonite in his back, needle in a MF-ing haystack while the helicopter was flying around? My ass!
Lois swimming superman's 250 pd. 6'2" ass alone to the surface? YA RIGHT, while her supposed husband plays the weak helpless douche(ghey like) while the woman(lois) plays the man. Sounds kinda like a ghey plot to me. You have a guy portrayed weak like that it TOTALLY comes off as gay, IM SERIOUS!
Lois taking her kid an wandering RIGHT Into lex's hands? Ignorant
Superman returning in a spaceship? He shoulda been flying his ass around space without a ship. So again makes no sense or isnt explained at all.

Originally posted by NPC
Who's to say he didnt? There wasnt anything showing that he didnt do exactly that. Or maybe he just wanted to change history as little as possible given the warning Jorel gave him. Or then again maybe no one other than lois died so there was no point in going back further than he did.
SR has bigger plot holes than you can imagine. Picking up a Kryptonite island? Flying to the created island KNOWING lex would be there KNOWing lex knows his weakness, KNOWING SOMEONE HAD BEEN AT HIS FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE AN TOOK STUFF an NOT PREPARING FOR IT?!? The biggest most retarded plot hole ever conceived!!!!!!
He has telescopic vision, he has x-ray vision, the only thing that can block it is lead. If he sees a compartment of lead on lex from 10 miles away, kryptonite, HFS! He should of went an got a radiation suit a la the cartoon, HFS!
Being found floatin the water with kryptonite in his back, needle in a MF-ing haystack while the helicopter was flying around? My ass!
Lois swimming superman's 250 pd. 6'2" ass alone to the surface? YA RIGHT, while her supposed husband plays the weak helpless douche(ghey like) while the woman(lois) plays the man. Sounds kinda like a ghey plot to me. You have a guy portrayed weak like that it TOTALLY comes off as gay, IM SERIOUS!
Lois taking her kid an wandering RIGHT Into lex's hands? Ignorant
Superman returning in a spaceship? He shoulda been flying his ass around space without a ship. So again makes no sense or isnt explained at all.

- He needed a spaceship to reach Krypton to shield himself from the radiation of the debris (where do you think kryptonite comes from?)
Plus, being away from a system with yellow sunlight for so long, it's likely his powers would have faded.
- Yes, he likely knew Lex stole the crystals, but he didn't have kryptonite at the Fortress - Lex got that elsewhere. And did you notice the unusual texture of the Island? Almost lead-like. The kryptonite was inside it, where it wasn't immediately detectable. Do we know his x-ray vision works on krypton architecture anyway?
- He's Superman and tries to do the diplomatic thing first, flying into the Island to find Lex, get back what he stole and take them to the authorities. It's afterwards he decides to get rid of the Island, whatever the human casualties up above (Lex & his henchmen.)
- He took a quick sun-bath to help psych himself up for what would be his biggest strength feat. After all the years of holding back just enough, he had to let loose like never before to push the Island into space. It's an example of his great willpower, to ignore the pain of the kryptonite inching closer to him every second, and do it. He does it, and the strain puts him into a coma and he nearly dies. Entire sequence is great.

Lol okay you are in love with the originals..fair enough, but looking at them from an outside perspective, they dont match up, and SR was made brilliantly, more so than spiderman 2, that is fact.

Now these "plot holes", superman didnt know the island was meshed with kryptonite... da daaa, so its fair that he thought he could out muscle the lot of them to only get beaten down, fair do's.

He was beaten pretty badly too, with a 6 inch peice of kryptonite lodged in an area where his lungs are.

This film was laden with less plot holes, and only small ones were in it, when compared with the original...

Now put it this way, set up 2, well big televisions up, one with the original and one with the new superman film, my eyes will be etched into watching the new one, the graphics, the heart and the better contructed sub plot makes for a better watch.

That is almost a fact among the crowds here in UK.

Originally posted by NPC
Who's to say he didnt? There wasnt anything showing that he didnt do exactly that. Or maybe he just wanted to change history as little as possible given the warning Jorel gave him. Or then again maybe no one other than lois died so there was no point in going back further than he did.
SR has bigger plot holes than you can imagine. Picking up a Kryptonite island? Flying to the created island KNOWING lex would be there KNOWing lex knows his weakness, KNOWING SOMEONE HAD BEEN AT HIS FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE AN TOOK STUFF an NOT PREPARING FOR IT?!? The biggest most retarded plot hole ever conceived!!!!!!
He has telescopic vision, he has x-ray vision, the only thing that can block it is lead. If he sees a compartment of lead on lex from 10 miles away, kryptonite, HFS! He should of went an got a radiation suit a la the cartoon, HFS!
Being found floatin the water with kryptonite in his back, needle in a MF-ing haystack while the helicopter was flying around? My ass!
Lois swimming superman's 250 pd. 6'2" ass alone to the surface? YA RIGHT, while her supposed husband plays the weak helpless douche(ghey like) while the woman(lois) plays the man. Sounds kinda like a ghey plot to me. You have a guy portrayed weak like that it TOTALLY comes off as gay, IM SERIOUS!
Lois taking her kid an wandering RIGHT Into lex's hands? Ignorant
Superman returning in a spaceship? He shoulda been flying his ass around space without a ship. So again makes no sense or isnt explained at all.

So...what's your point?

I noticed a smile on Brandon's face when he's approaching kriptonite island (?)

He wasn't smiling - he was angry. He knew this was built from the tech Lex stole from him. A twitch on his face showed his contained rage.

That was the crystal scene...he leaps up and then smiles. I only have a bootleg I bought in this horrible city. Maybe dvd release will be clear.

Originally posted by MattDay
This film was laden with less plot holes, and only small ones were in it, when compared with the original...


Really?

There is still the matter of Supes transferring his powers to his son even though when he and Lois had intercourse he was stripped of his powers at the time. Yes Clark still retains the same Kryptonian DNA but one has to take into account that it was likely altered when his powers were taken away. Even if the transferred DNA allowed Superman's son to absorb solar energy and convert this to energy it was still left even remotely explained or hinted at during SR.


Originally posted by pr1983
You think he was taken seriously?

Singer made it a point to emulate the old movies...

I'm sorry but i don't see SR as being very serious at all... its as much a family movie as the reeve ones imo...

that is simple DNA transference, you don't need to bother yourself with that one, one way or another his son will have similar or the same or even more powers than his father.

The film was a good watch, more interesting than pirates of the carribean 1 or 2, depends on what you think a sequel is lol.

8/10 for SR, it was a good film, simple dimple logic.

Originally posted by MattDay
that is simple DNA transference, you don't need to bother yourself with that one, one way or another his son will have similar or the same or even more powers than his father.



Originally posted by Praylu
....it was still left even remotely explained or hinted at during SR.

there you go praylu, your sig says it all really, his son has inherited the kryptonian dna of his father who was subjected to red sun radiation at the time, but that doesnt alter his dna, as in the film, he eventually rid himself of the effect over time. so his son will have powers one way or another.

Originally posted by NPC
Who's to say he didnt? There wasnt anything showing that he didnt do exactly that. Or maybe he just wanted to change history as little as possible given the warning Jorel gave him. Or then again maybe no one other than lois died so there was no point in going back further than he did.
SR has bigger plot holes than you can imagine. Picking up a Kryptonite island? Flying to the created island KNOWING lex would be there KNOWing lex knows his weakness, KNOWING SOMEONE HAD BEEN AT HIS FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE AN TOOK STUFF an NOT PREPARING FOR IT?!? The biggest most retarded plot hole ever conceived!!!!!!
He has telescopic vision, he has x-ray vision, the only thing that can block it is lead. If he sees a compartment of lead on lex from 10 miles away, kryptonite, HFS! He should of went an got a radiation suit a la the cartoon, HFS!
Being found floatin the water with kryptonite in his back, needle in a MF-ing haystack while the helicopter was flying around? My ass!
Lois swimming superman's 250 pd. 6'2" ass alone to the surface? YA RIGHT, while her supposed husband plays the weak helpless douche(ghey like) while the woman(lois) plays the man. Sounds kinda like a ghey plot to me. You have a guy portrayed weak like that it TOTALLY comes off as gay, IM SERIOUS!
Lois taking her kid an wandering RIGHT Into lex's hands? Ignorant
Superman returning in a spaceship? He shoulda been flying his ass around space without a ship. So again makes no sense or isnt explained at all.

I agree with alot of that, but when the found Superman in all that water it was Jason who found him so I suppose his X-ray vision and telescopic vision kicked in, as he was the only one to see him, and Lois did ask twice. At least that is my theory.

And by now Superman should know that if he's going to take on Lex Luthor Lex will have some way of hurting him, especialy when he stole Superman's possesions, i thought he was supposed to be smart.

Also the kryptonite made no sense, at one point it weakens him so much he is being beaten up by 3 normal guys, at another he's lifting a continent into space...make up your mind either it effects him or not, if it was shown to only hurt him then yes I could say he fought through the pain, but it just seemed to turn his powers off in the film.

And when he was in space listning to everything on earth lol, you can't hear anything in space...how did that work. fair enough if they make it so you can hear things in space to make it intresting but don't make a big scene about someone listning in space because that makes no sense, he could have at least been left in the atmosphere.

I still enjoyed the film (even if it was realy long and got abit boring) but these plotholes are just weird to be quite honest. Action scenes were great though.

Originally posted by MattDay
there you go praylu, your sig says it all really, his son has inherited the kryptonian dna of his father who was subjected to red sun radiation at the time, but that doesnt alter his dna, as in the film, he eventually rid himself of the effect over time. so his son will have powers one way or another.

I am all too aware of the eventuality of Superman's powers being passed on to his seed, the original point being disputed was that it was a major plothole in the film due to the fact that it was left unexplained.

There's a difference between something not being explained, and the filmmakers trusting the audience to figure things out for themselves. Since Superman I & II were widely seen, and it's known they are following that continuity more or less, they aren't wasting time explaining everything. Some of us don't need to be spoon-fed.

He means X plain

Originally posted by roughrider
There's a difference between something not being explained, and the filmmakers trusting the audience to figure things out for themselves. Since Superman I & II were widely seen, and it's known they are following that continuity more or less, they aren't wasting time explaining everything. Some of us don't need to be spoon-fed.



*heavy sigh*

There's also a clear obvious difference between a plothole and "trusting audiences to figure out things for themselves". Yes, it is known by EVERYONE that they attempted to follow the continuity of the first two films, but this goes beyond merely watching the films to connect the pieces. We are dealing with the matter of Superman being "powerless" during his intercourse with Lois and her giving birth to a child who still inherited his father's gifts. It's not "wasting time explaining everything", we're not speaking of something as trivial as Clark's posture changing from one film to another...this is the film's climax. An audience should not have to rely on his/her imagination to fill the gaping hole found residing within the plot of the film.

"Some of us don't need to be spoon-fed"

*Slightly amused by misinformed assumption*

This of course means you are perfectly satisfied with plotholes that leave the audience uninformed of the film's major plot vehicle?

Honestly now, all of us can sit here and develop theories as to what enabled Superman's son to inherit his father's abilities....but none of them will be fact. Why? Because it was left without the mildest push in the proper direction to even conceive of knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt our/my/your theory is true.

I'm not attempting to bring the film down in any shape or form, I am as grand a fan as any other found within this forum.....BUT this does not mean I am going to act as if the film did not have it's mistakes.

It is one thing to defend a film, it is another to ignore & argue all so evident flaws. Many if not all of our favorite films include these no matter how low or high in quanity they may be.

I'm lost are you arguing that the kid isn't superman's child or you are? because your arguement is vague to say the least...

and seriously if you needed more evidence on the matters surrounding the child then you are 3 years and below, my friggin' baby cousin knew what was going on, why the heck can't you? you are being pandantic here...

my goodness

Originally posted by MattDay
I'm lost are you arguing that the kid isn't superman's child or you are? because your arguement is vague to say the least...

NO....what???

I failt to see where you got that from....

If you've read the last few posts you'll know I'm NOT debating whether or not he is Superman's son, obviously he is and again I don't know where you got the idea that I believed otherwise.

I was conveying the fact that given the events of the second film and the son's inheritance of his father's abilities in SR, everything was left to the imagination of the viewers to fill the gaping hole found residing within the plot of the film.

A real S fan thinks straight

Originally posted by Praylu
*heavy sigh*

There's also a clear obvious difference between a plothole and "trusting audiences to figure out things for themselves". Yes, it is known by EVERYONE that they attempted to follow the continuity of the first two films, but this goes beyond merely watching the films to connect the pieces. We are dealing with the matter of Superman being "powerless" during his intercourse with Lois and her giving birth to a child who still inherited his father's gifts. It's not "wasting time explaining everything", we're not speaking of something as trivial as Clark's posture changing from one film to another...this is the film's climax. An audience should not have to rely on his/her imagination to fill the gaping hole found residing within the plot of the film.

"Some of us don't need to be spoon-fed"

*Slightly amused by misinformed assumption*

This of course means you are perfectly satisfied with plotholes that leave the audience uninformed of the film's major plot vehicle?

Honestly now, all of us can sit here and develop theories as to what enabled Superman's son to inherit his father's abilities....but none of them will be fact. Why? Because it was left without the mildest push in the proper direction to even conceive of knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt our/my/your theory is true.

I'm not attempting to bring the film down in any shape or form, I am as grand a fan as any other found within this forum.....BUT this does not mean I am going to act as if the film did not have it's mistakes.

It is one thing to defend a film, it is another to ignore & argue all so evident flaws. Many if not all of our favorite films include these no matter how low or high in quanity they may be.
My argument was not directed towards you, but others who seem to need everything explained - they could figure it out if they think first and do their research.

Originally posted by roughrider
My argument was not directed towards you, but others who seem to need everything explained - they could figure it out if they think first and do their research.

Ah, ok cool then.

Originally posted by redcaped
A real S fan thinks straight

What are you implying?

Originally posted by Praylu
We are dealing with the matter of Superman being "powerless" during his intercourse with Lois and her giving birth to a child who still inherited his father's gifts.


Superman may have been powerless when he slept with Lois, but he was (and is) still Kryptonian, not human.

His son would be Kryptonian. (/human)

Being a Kryptonian, living on Earth under a yellow sun, he will have a dense molecular structure, and some(if not all) of the same powers that Superman, Zod, or any other Kryptonian would have on this planet.

Superman not having use of his powers, and becoming mortal, was still Kryptonian.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Superman may have been powerless when he slept with Lois, but he was (and is) still Kryptonian, not human.

His son would be Kryptonian. (/human)

Being a Kryptonian, living on Earth under a yellow sun, he will have a dense molecular structure, and some(if not all) of the same powers that Superman, Zod, or any other Kryptonian would have on this planet.

Superman not having use of his powers, and becoming mortal, was still Kryptonian.

Interesting...but I already knew that.

I was merely discussing the matter that it was left untouched on during SR. One spoken line would have made it clear to all viewing what direction or theory the film was utilizing.

Someone wants to pay me $500,000 but I'm still Kryptonian! I'll do it for girls if they do the same.

Originally posted by Praylu
Interesting...but I already knew that.

I was merely discussing the matter that it was left untouched on during SR. One spoken line would have made it clear to all viewing what direction or theory the film was utilizing.

If you already knew it, then why do you need the film to touch on it?

Obviously you got it on your own.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
If you already knew it, then why do you need the film to touch on it?

Obviously you got it on your own.


What I have....is theories/ideas alike you and everyone else. None of them certain for fact. Which is the actual theory or idea that the film intended to follow? It is unknown due to the fact that it was not shown. That was my point.

Giant plothole: Lois is a goddamn retard.

wanna check on my unknown? get over here closer. -SR

Originally posted by Praylu
What I have....is theories/ideas alike you and everyone else. None of them certain for fact. Which is the actual theory or idea that the film intended to follow? It is unknown due to the fact that it was not shown. That was my point.

It's not a theory or idea.

It's an obvious fact.

Kal-el is a Kryptonian.

He slept with Lois. (de-powered yes, but it doesn't matter.)

His son is Kryptonian.

His son has powers.


What did you need spelled out?

That the obvious rules of the series, set up in I and II, be explained again?

I did x plained this way b4 the move was released. I just knew it by x-periences.

"de-powered yes, but it doesn't matter"

Oh it matters indeed...

His DNA would have likely been fundamentally altered and changed the course in the transferring of vital genetic material to his son. When Superman enters the containment unit there is no clear telling of what materials or elements may be enclosed within, including possible radioactive components. These variables would very well hold extreme influence on the transferring process.

If a mutant were suddenly cured (as in X3), his/her mutant gene would quite possibly not be passed on as so.

Having said all of this, it is not known to what degree the containment unit's effect reached. It could have very well replaced Superman's Kryptonian DNA with that similar to a human thus enabling him to impregnate Lois Lane. To my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong) it is not specifically mentioned anywhere whether it is scientifically possible for Superman to impregnate a human woman.

That's really only one of many plotholes. It seems like every major character in this film is a bit slow especially Lois Lane.

Lois Lane is a horrible mother and investigative journalist. She can't spell? She decides to endanger her child and trespass onto a yacht? She then subsequently decides to endanger her child yet again? She is still completely unaware that Clark is Superman, this having been erased in Superman II. Yet her Superboy is clearly Superman's child and yet her journalistic instincts or lack thereof don't kick in? And to top that all off she apparently has won a Pulitzer?

I mean Superboy kills someone. A 5 year old just killed someone. And nobody seems to care.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I mean Superboy kills someone. A 5 year old just killed someone. And nobody seems to care.

Yeah, i know...

and the kid cant possibly have powers, jor-el stopped clark from getting power from the sun, then he slept with lois, then he got his powers back... bit of a gap in there...

No Superman Returns is not better than Christopher reeve's version.

that's your opinion, but for todays day and age, the acting, character, was better than back then, no chris reeve's version isn't better

Originally posted by pr1983
Yeah, i know...

and the kid cant possibly have powers, jor-el stopped clark from getting power from the sun, then he slept with lois, then he got his powers back... bit of a gap in there...

The de-powering didn't change his DNA; Jason got it from him.

Jason, as a half-kryptonian, may not be powered the same way as Clark became. Look at Kon-El, who only had a small portion of Superman's power.

To me, Routh is:

too young looking. Routh looks like an 18 yr. old C.K. Superman should look 30, 35.

too skinny. Superman should look built and not like a "Hanes" model.

too geeky "as Superman". His voice had a nerdy deep tone to it that I didn't like. Superman should have a confident, unshaken, superhero voice.

Reeve was a better actor, a better Superman, looking the part perfectly. He had more self esteem, he looked more manly, had more charisma and was just really into being Superman. Reeve's Superman was for truth, justice and the American way while Routh was for modeling for the audience at every shot he could take.

Reeve's made it genuine. Routh's objective was to look as cool as he possibly could as Superman, i think. To him, it wasn't about being Superman. It was more about looking good, as Superman.

I have given my opinion and I'm not going into arguing.

Originally posted by roughrider
The de-powering didn't change his DNA; Jason got it from him.

Jason, as a half-kryptonian, may not be powered the same way as Clark became. Look at Kon-El, who only had a small portion of Superman's power.

It changed his dna to the effect that he wouldnt absorb power from the sun anymore...

kon-el is a clone, and he was created in completely different circumstances...

but yeah... for effects, returns, for everything else, the original reeve movie...

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
To me, Routh is:

too young looking. Routh looks like an 18 yr. old C.K. Superman should look 30, 35.

too skinny. Superman should look built and not like a "Hanes" model.

too geeky "as Superman". His voice had a nerdy deep tone to it that I didn't like. Superman should have a confident, unshaken, superhero voice.

Reeve was a better actor, a better Superman, looking the part perfectly. He had more self esteem, he looked more manly, had more charisma and was just really into being Superman. Reeve's Superman was for truth, justice and the American way while Routh was for modeling for the audience at every shot he could take.

Reeve's made it genuine. Routh's objective was to look as cool as he possibly could as Superman, i think. To him, it wasn't about being Superman. It was more about looking good, as Superman.

Well physically he is bigger than reeve, so in respect to the that, he fits better there, the acting will be a lot better in the second movie, it's most probably the jitters showing at the moment, i meen he was fully aware of the baggage he had to carry... be reasonable on this is to be fair

Originally posted by roughrider
It's Chris Reeve - not Reeves.

You're confusing him with George Reeves.

Yes I know who they are, it was supposed to be REEVE'S but I forgot the "'s". As in the Plural Christopher Reeve (s) films. Meaning all the films, not just Superman I.

So Superman Returns was better then Reeve's films. As opposed to if I was just talking about Superman I, then I'd say "The Chris Reeve film"

still think it was a lot for a man to carry, he'll get more settled in the sequels

hell ya

"Superman Returns" sucked. I knew it was going to. The old ones weree pretty good, though.
Personally, I can't stand the character whatsoever, but if done right, his media stuff can be fun to watch. Brian Singer failed to do so.

bet u liked x men 3, that sucked

Superman Returns only has the special effects going for it,which look great
all in all the movie was horrible,i will take any of the old ones over this!

that's a harsh comment coming from someone who could only dream of getting to where bryan singer has gotten, trash talk people who are effectively above u, u guys suck big time

Above us? what the hell does that mean?

not sure, he just can make movies and knows the right people to make big movies... u can post on a forum... thats great, keep going and u'll be a super forum geek, but not in the same league as someone like bryan singer

so in essense dont trash talk what u dont really know

Originally posted by MattDay
not sure, he just can make movies and knows the right people to make big movies... u can post on a forum... thats great, keep going and u'll be a super forum geek, but not in the same league as someone like bryan singer

i don't how you can talk like that, its kind of insulting...

he's a director, he went to film school, and he made a good movie like the usual suspects... he made big budget x-men movies that made shit loads of cash, but weren't exactly great, and he made superman returns...

he isn't exactly a god... there are far better directors, and he could have done with some far better writers...

i don't see what makes him that special... after all he is human just like you and me...

Originally posted by MattDay
so in essense dont trash talk what u dont really know

how do you know we dont know what we're talking about?

taking an educated guess u dont really know a lot about film making, just a watcher, like most people, right?

if he isn't a great director why did peter jackson let him direct a few scenes of king kong while he slept from exhaustion, that's having some faith in the guy right? and king kong did well in the box office, although i didnt watch it as I've seen enough of king kong for this life time

Originally posted by MattDay
taking an educated guess u dont really know a lot about film making, just a watcher, like most people, right?

if he isn't a great director why did peter jackson let him direct a few scenes of king kong while he slept from exhaustion, that's having some faith in the guy right? and king kong did well in the box office, although i didnt watch it as I've seen enough of king kong for this life time

i havent made a movie no, but i do take an interest in the methods (though admittedly im a long way off making my first box office smash )

i dont mind singer doing king kong, or usual suspects, he is pretty good at certain types of filmmaking, i just believe (in my humble opinion), that he's not the best when it comes to superhero movies, thats all...

just because someone is a good director doesnt mean they're good at every type of movie, like all walks of life different people are better at different aspects of their profession than others... its like playing sports, people are good at certain positions on the field, some are better at different positions...

Originally posted by Wesyeed
Nope.

thats a good way of putting it.No way is how I put it.Doesnt even come close to being the masterpiece that the first two were.They should have left it alone,its not like a new one was drastically needed unlike with batman.

true, I s'pose the originals are classics, but my god they make me cringe from how cheesy they are and how dated everything is, hense a sequel of some kind was SORELY needed for this franchise, bring on the sequel is what the majority of people who went to see it say, look at the reviews, the overall consensus of responses to it and you'll see more poeple liked it alot to the rest of so so's and people who hate it... that is the closest thing to fact that this film is good, it was reflected overall, end of discussion on that now, is superman returns better than the originals... everything but main plot and original superman, other than that yes it is better than the previous man of steel movies. I'm 19, i think the old one's are too dated to compete with the new age films.

actually most the reviews are not favorable towards it and actually the consensus is most people didnt like it.I still think the special effects still measure up to many movies that are released today.

Originally posted by roughrider
It's at least the second best Superman film.

naw the first two are easily much better.no contest.

go onto google, search superman returns, it brings back an overall world wide critics view on it... 4 out of 5 stars, mr parker you are for once, i'd admit are wrong on that note

Superman Returns sucked so bad. Bryan Singer should of stuck to his Crapy X men movies, just terrible..

yes it was better, short answer

Originally posted by Darth Ravenous
Superman Returns sucked so bad. Bryan Singer should of stuck to his Crapy X men movies, just terrible..

yep.I could not have said it better myself.

mr parker i take it u hated the spiderman movie too, that's in similar formula to SR, maybe u should open your mind to a story line with a sub plot... or just go watch x men 3, a classic example of "blow stuff up" type story writing

Wow, me and parker actually agreeing for one...

dated? given that its Superman, in 20 years superman returns will look dated...

the script, acting and casting of the first two blow sr away imo...

imo all sr had going for it was its effects...

Originally posted by MattDay
mr parker i take it u hated the spiderman movie too, that's in similar formula to SR, maybe u should open your mind to a story line with a sub plot... or just go watch x men 3, a classic example of "blow stuff up" type story writing


yeah its pretty obvious I hated the man-spider movies. dont even get me started on how those movies look like they were written by a 5 year old.at least with superman returns,I wont go THAT far and say that they looked like they were written by a 5 year old.The writing for Returns wasnt THAT bad.

To be honest, i do feel this version completely shits on the prior movies.

Many won't admit that even if its how they feel, due to misplaced loyalty to a deceased actor.

Ehh....It does him more honor to call a spade a spade, rather than big up the movies cuz he's a few feet under.

Rip C.Reeve.

I will always maintain, that your best movie was the one where you got that nun pregnant.

pr the story for the originals sucked, turn the world around by flying at speeds that would really just be like a giant tornado, he changed clothes by falling out the window and doing nothing... what?

he held a plane at one end that would of broke under the strain eventually, very clever writing that is.

I like them because they are classic's, first superhero movies to break the mold, but they are crap when compared to the attentiveness to detail of new age films, im not sure what most of u guys are holding onto, but superman returns got the vote from all my friends at being better than the classics, as they plainly put it "boring" and laughable situations as well with many holes... im gona stop now but ur all idiots, there i said it.

Originally posted by UniOmni
To be honest, i do feel this version completely shits on the prior movies.

Many won't admit that even if its how they feel, due to misplaced loyalty to a deceased actor.

Ehh....It does him more honor to call a spade a spade, rather than big up the movies cuz he's a few feet under.

Rip C.Reeve.

I will always maintain, that your best movie was the one where you got that nun pregnant.

It sure does shit on the prior movies.well at least the first two.superman 3 and 4 were crap.

Originally posted by MattDay


he held a plane at one end that would of broke under the strain eventually, very clever writing that is.

.

How would the plane break, he was just replacing one of the engines with himself...

Originally posted by MattDay
pr the story for the originals sucked, turn the world around by flying at speeds that would really just be like a giant tornado, he changed clothes by falling out the window and doing nothing... what?

he held a plane at one end that would of broke under the strain eventually, very clever writing that is.

I like them because they are classic's, first superhero movies to break the mold, but they are crap when compared to the attentiveness to detail of new age films, im not sure what most of u guys are holding onto, but superman returns got the vote from all my friends at being better than the classics, as they plainly put it "boring" and laughable situations as well with many holes... im gona stop now but ur all idiots, there i said it.

do you understand the term 'pre-crisis'? because if you did then you'd understand the movies themselves...

i'm not holding onto a damn thing... if you want to call people names, then go ahead, but you have the wrong end of the stick entirely...

Originally posted by UniOmni
To be honest, i do feel this version completely shits on the prior movies.

Many won't admit that even if its how they feel, due to misplaced loyalty to a deceased actor.

Ehh....It does him more honor to call a spade a spade, rather than big up the movies cuz he's a few feet under.

Rip C.Reeve.

I will always maintain, that your best movie was the one where you got that nun pregnant.

if i thought sr was better, i'd admit it...

Originally posted by pr1983
do you understand the term 'pre-crisis'? because if you did then you'd understand the movies themselves...

i'm not holding onto a damn thing... if you want to call people names, then go ahead, but you have the wrong end of the stick entirely...



if i thought sr was better, i'd admit it...

the new superman is pre crisis but they kept him believable, wrong end of the stick is with you pr lol

I noticed we have had quite a few heated debates havent we... anyway I still feel SR is just better, and at the end it says in dedication to chris reeve and diana reeve, I know if he had watched it he would of loved it, dont know why but he would of had a smile on his face all the way through it! RIP chris, Brandon will fulfill your role with all that he can be