Ah, an Audi. Thanks.

Another silly question: is it really possible for the space shuttle to have boosters fire for that long and fast? I had thought that they only were capable of short burts but in the movie, the speed and stream of smoke made it look like it was flying as if it had all three main external rockets attached.

It was a fictional shuttle (unless NASA or somebody has been working on something). Notice a few things: shuttle didn't have a tail, jets were inside of the shuttle as there were no external tanks. Also, we don't know what type of fuel it was using. It's fictional...let it be!

No tail? Didn't notice that. OK, will just pretend it is a new shuttle model. NASA does plan to have a new model ready by 2012.

Saw this for a 4th time (because my 3rd time was marred by projection problems, mainly an out-of-focus left side of the screen that got tiring to watch), and the last 30 minutes of this film just melt my insides, I hear sniffles from the audience, I know tears are welling in my eyes, and most of it resonates with me, moreso than many of the other recent films I've seen lately. I realize a lot of people nitpick their way out of the film, but if you can invest in the emotional core of the story unfolding before your very eyes, the heart of the matter, it's a truly human story within the trappings of Superman's extraordinary abilities. I'm pretty happy that Singer and company decided to wear their heart on their sleeves, instead of subjecting us to a 2.5-hour super-powered slugfest many people were clamoring for. I think it provides a strong foundation for the future installments for even more emotional involvement for the audience, given the relationships at stake.

Four times already? Sheesh, at this pace, you'd have already seen the movie ten times in the theater by the time the dvd is out.


BTW: just watched the History channel special, it was pretty good.

I don't understand why this film is emotional. I'm the type of person that cries at every single movie, even superhero movies such as all of the X-mens (yes, even X-men 3) and Spiderman 1 and 2, but I just don't get it with this film. Is it the Jesus theme to why it's emotional for some people?

My most recent crying fit at the end of the movie, but had to control myself because the lights came up right away, was for THE BREAK UP, an excellent film remeniscent of CHASING AMY...

No, not the Jesus theme, but the theme of alienation, loneliness, and the discovery of family.

If you haven't seen the film, then don't read what's below...

The two scenes that really get me everytime (well the two that I have seen) are when Lois first sees a red and blue streak go past the window of the airplane. You can just see her heart skip a beat and the shock and realization in her eyes. Truely. And second, when Superman gets ready to leave the sea-plane and tells her goodbye. You can tell she wants to say more and yet can't, for obvious reasons. You can tell she does not want to lose him again, and you can tell he knows what's coming - and that part right there is what Superman is about. Honestly, those people that keep saying the '78 version is better, there is not one scene in there, I don't think, that gets to the heart of what Superman is more than what he prepares himself to do in that moment when he leaves the plane.

I'm still trying to figure out the hate toward this movie, imo, most entertaining movie of 2006. Not the best made, but easily the most fun. There's a certain sense of sadness through the entire thing, but it manages to burst through that and keep things moving briskly. It's a nice juggling act, and I really hope it does well.

That said, I guess I can't be judgemental, since people seem to be loving PotC2 and that was flat out butt numbing to me.

I think the sadness is what's startling most people. I've been following the development of a SUPERMAN V since 1988, and even I was surprised by the tone of Singer's work. Amidst all the super-feats, there is some portentous (some would say pretentious, but that is a whole other argument) meaning and drama which isn't aimed for kids and certainly isn't the norm for a comic book movie. As far as Summer escapist entertainment goes, SUPERMAN RETURNS is much more serious in tone than your average popcorn flick, and that may actually be a downer overall.

I, for one, welcome a little more pathos in superhero films. It's what keeps them more "adult" and so long as the soap opera cliches are kept to a minimum (which is why SMALLVILLE bores me to tears), the characters become more involving and less two dimensional.

Granted, since movies like SPIDER-MAN, BATMAN, X-MEN and so forth are derived from pulp junk, making a more "mature" cinematic version out of these archetypes may seemsdownright contradictory. However, I think that the better superhero movies like BATMAN BEGINS, the first two SUPERMAN movies, X-MEN 2, THE ROCKETEER (to a certain extent), and even HULK (to a more limited extent), clearly and effortlessly exceed their comic book sources. And for all its faults (which may be corrected when we see the missing scenes on DVD), SUPERMAN RETURNS is still better than any Superman comic book I've ever read and it takes the movie characters into a direction which would be unheard of twenty years ago, Yet, the viewing experience may be too "heavy" for audiences who like their comic book movies to stay simple-minded and action-packed.

Sorry for rambling. But the bottom line is that Singer's cinematic vision on this long-awaited revival might have been just too damn ambitious for its own good.

Just got back from seeing this. I read all the disapointments and negativity in this thread prior to going and was prepared to be let down. But it turns out I was very pleased with what Singer and Co. did.

I really liked the themes of alienation and loneliness which gave the movie an emotional, human core, albeit very subtle. The action wasn't anything brilliant so it was definately this that made the movie for me. In fact, I found the action scenes more boring than the character development parts.

If Singer is going to be doing more sequels to Superman, is it possible or realistic that we will ever see Superman fighting Bizarro, Brainiac, or Darkseid? If he can have heroes fighting villains in the first 2 X-mens and still make them respectable movies, can't Singer pull it off with Superman. Or he's too deep in it already and will have to stick with Lex Luthor again and real-life soap opera themes?

Since I think that Superman Returns is sort of like a rehash of Richard Donner's first Superman, maybe the next one will be reminiscent of Superman 2, where Superman kicks the ass and gets ass kicked by other super villains and it still be a respectable movie (unlike Superman 4 which had a super lame villain)...

Superman Returns is a rehash of Superman 1. Here's proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PeHfrVR_1A

I really doubt it. Singer doesn't seem comfortable with using super-villains. The "X-Fans" wanted that in the X-Men franchise and Singer never delivered it. I truly doubt we'll see it in his Superman sequel, if anything, the internet rumours suggest that Richard White will somehow turn into Metallo.

I'd kill for a Darkseid CGI battle. Just make sure the same guy who voices him in Justice League does his voice in the movie.

And if you're keeping score at home, it all goes back to the whole thing about Lois prattling on to Clark about what's so hard about saying goodbye? Flash forward to the scene in the sea-plane, and Superman does just that, he says "Goodbye, Lois." and that's the enormity of Superman knowing that he's about to do something that will most probably kill him, but he has to do it, that's who he is. Lois understands the stakes as well, but has to let Superman do his thing for the greater good.

You're only looking at it superficially, scratch beneath the surface, and you'll see that the similarities have been twisted to suit the new situation at hand.

I've said it before, this film is a bridge between the old Donner films, and the future Singer films. For instance:

Really? I disagree. While I understand what you are trying to say, I disagree. Yes, it had more "emotional" storylines, but the fact is, the plot was rehash of the original with a kid thrown in the mix. Luthor's motivation had not changed in twenty years and Superman was still an alien.

I wish the chemistry was better then, because christopher reeves and even tom welling look like they really love lois lane. Brandon Routh looked like he didn't even like Louis Lane - he was acting like a spaced out stalking zombie...

I was thinking about this movie after i came out of potc2. I enjoyed superman returns more much than pirates 2, which i hated. Better paced, enjoyed the romance, only the action and plot lacking somewhat. routh and boswith did good jobs, the writers copied superman i and ii too much but wrote a nice romance and gave a real reason why superman can't be with lois which leads up to suprman 6. In my initial review i said i enjoyed the tone and actors but the plot was poor, the initial disppointment, probably too high of expectations, has woren off and i look forward to seeing it again to realistically judge it.

We are obviously interpreting the film differently. It worked for me, doesn't work for you. That is all.

Yes, but I figured people would get that linkage. Maybe I was being too optomistic.

Man, sometimes - based on what has been said in this thread - I feel like only a handful of people in this thread get the movie.

How are Luthor's motivations the same? I keep hearing people say that, but I really disagree.

Where did alienation fit into the first Superman movie? I saw that 100% acceptance, not the other way around. That is one of the central themes that runs through this one.

Also, if you look at Kitty v Tesmacher, they intially appear the same, but if you look below the surface, like Patman said, you'll see that their motivations are competly different. Tesmacher is selfish, whereas a true sense of how wrong Lex is being comes over Kitty. Plus I think you see more of the undertones of what her and Lex's relationship is, which is why she appears sorry at the end, whereas Tesmacher was more remorseful due to fear.

In Superman I he attempted to destroy California so he would own the most valuable real estate in the world. In Superman II he makes a deal with the Kryptonians for a little piece of real estate he had his eye on (Australia), in Superman Returns he attempts to to create a new continent that will destroy all others, making him the largest land owner in the world.

"Getting" and "liking" a movie aren't linked. I think people get the movie (just maybe aren't eloquent enough or interested enough to put it clearly in writing), they just didn't get bowled over by it.

I got it, and I mildly enjoyed it, but it just was't what I was looking for in a movie.

Go figure, someone named "Superman07" is now saying people "don't get the movie". Who didn't see that one comin' from a mile away?

Singer's love for the Donner films crippled Returns. Not only did he tie it too closely in plot to the original, but his whole "vague history" nonsense has caused so many plot holes it isn't funny. He should of either made a direct sequel or rebooted the franchise.

I say, drop Singer for the sequel. Get someone else. Anyone else. I didn't care for his take on X-Men and while I enjoyed Superman Returns, I fear that he will repeat the same exact mistakes again.

Come on....I originally put a note in my post about some of our screenames being related to Superman, but took it out...

I'm not being a fanboy and I'm not saying the movie is perfect and that it can do no wrong. However, I do think people who are complaining are very superficially comparing it to the first 1/2.

Don't know what the novelization is like, but has anyone read the comic book version? It's actually BETTER than the movie, in that it does the following:



The comic also covers some of the scenes that Singer edited out from the final print.