Is superman returns better?

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