Excatly. I certainly hope people weren't expecting this movie to follow the comics in any way other than "Krypton blew up. Baby adopted by Kents. Glasses. Daily Planet. Red cape, blue tights. Hates krypontonite."

Not to mention hates kryptonite.

its just like he should only be worried about saving lois.... not the other reason.....

Dude, the character is what...60+ years old. Something new had to be thrown into the mix.

Again I ask...why? Why does that have to be it? Can't the character change? Can't new things be introduced?

When translating a serial form of entertainment such as a comic or TV show to a film format, the filmmakers are able to take chances with making "big moves" with the characters and stories. The creative team does not have to worry as much about painting themselves into a corner. Star trek :TNG is an excellent example. I remember how outraged people were when Data got emotions and how it changed his character etc. Don't we want stories where our characters evolve?

It's interesting to watch how this thread is going the completely opposite way to the Transformers one! People seem to be pro-change to the Superman mythos but stubborn about changes to the Transformers.

I think the complaints regarding Transformers is their look. People who grew up on the cartoons want them to look like they did during the tv show and it's not even close with any of them. The recent discussion seems to be more about how Superman should act as opposed as to how he looks.

Old-timers like myself will recall that back in 1982, the idea of Lois and Superman sleeping with each other was considered quite risque. I mean, for nearly forty years in the comics, all they did was flirt and maybe hug every once in awhile. Then Wham-Bam-Thank You, Superman! they end up diddling each other onscreen (and in a silver bed, no less).

Believe it or not, a lot of reviewers and fans considered the "sex" scene to be a degradation of the character and almost a betrayal to the childhood legend. However, now that we're getting more and more realistic heroes onscreen and in print, it is time that Superman grew up in at least one form of media. He can still appeal to kids in the series, but grow up in the movies.

The same goes for the X3 thread. In fact, some of the same folks who HATED X3 changes are cool with changes in Superman Returns.

I wonder if they see it more as a progression or evolution of Superman rather than an outright change. Additionally, X3 adapted a specific story from the comics whereas Superman Returns was more or less an original story, although it had a very similar structure to Donner's film.

Awe who knows. I liked both movies and since I'm a DC fan and not a Marvel fan I didn't have any problems with the changes in X3.

I had no problem with creative offing some of the characters in X3. As long as it isn't just for shock value, and it advances or ties up a storyling, I'm cool with it.

Sure, but obviously some changes people hate. Considering the biggest complaint around the movie seems to be surrounding the kid, it seems to be a fair hit on the movie, whether some people here find it fine or not.

Now, if it were me, and I got to tell the writers where they could have extracted even more pathos and excitement from Lex's subplot, I would have gone in a slightly different direction. Sure, have all that stuff with Lex taking possession of the crystals, but instead of using the crystals to just run roughshod over the north American continent, simply have Lex create a Kryptonite-laden-crystalized continent in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, and while that's great and all for Lex (since this does build off Superman II and Lex's deal for Australia in exchange for bringing Superman to Zod and company), the presence of such a creation in that location causes massive unintended planetary implosion scenarios, and it's that scenario that Superman can't allow to happen again, he can't allow earth to implode due to Lex's quest for power and leave him alone once again in this universe. I think this would have propped up the epic-ness that few found wanting in this opening installment of the relaunch of Superman films. This would side-step the ludicrousness of Lex de-stabilizing the world economy by ruining America, and create a truly world-shattering event that Superman would have to save the day by lifting "New Krypton" out of the ocean and into space, at almost deadly cost to Superman himself (cut to the lifting of the new "continent" and let the film run as it did to the end).

Would this have added some more excitement and pathos to SR in a positive way?

i agree with all of the flaws people have been pointing out and the things that bugged me the most about this movie was:

1) kate was way too young to play lois
2) lois being thrown around repeatedly and never showing a bruise or any sign of injury
3) how long the movie felt
4) the lack of a strong central plot that loomed over several subplots
5) lois as a mother--she took her kid with her to snoop out a story...wtf!

i'll stop now.

overall, very entertaining and i will be buying the dvd release.

At a movie budget of $250million.. the movie is not that worth...

I think Brian Singer "Killed Superman" like how Joel Schumacher "Killed Batman" with Batman and Robin.

But Singer's budget was $204 million, the rest was development cost that Singer had nothing to do with.

Hardly.

That analogy doesn't work.

Batman and Robin was a horrible, universally panned movie that didn't make nearly as much as any of the others in the series and had everyone hating Batman.

Superman Returns reintroduces Superman, outperformed two sequels, and is largely praised (critically) and fairly well liked overall (mixed reactions (I loved it), but it isn't an all out hate fest.). Superman IV: The Quest for Peace was the Superman equal to Batman and Robin.

I got around to seeing this tonight at Imax. THe Imax presentation was nice but the movie left me flat.

I thought the movie was way too long for such a simple plot. I mean the whole Lex builds a toy town and blows it up took like 10 minutes, when it could have been 2. I know Superman 1 was pretty long, but hey, it took its time with Superman's origin story plus through in a little Luthor story to go with it.

I guess I didn't connect with the movie at all, all this Lois stuff was just confusing and without referencing what happened between the two before they left - man you were just guessing about what their relationship was before he decided to leave.

So did Superman 2 happen? Who knows? Some things seem to be referenced (Luthor at the Fortress, the Supe bang) but if you make it clear that 2 happened then where are Zod?

Finally, Superman in the hospital just seemed like an afterthought. I thought that the kid might give a blood transfusion or something (the father becomes the son, the son becomes the father!) but no luck. Nope. He just wakes up and leaves.

The best lines of the movie were Brando's and nearly all of them we have heard before.

Lois got the shit kicked out of her on the plane and the boat, but no scratches!

----
here is my personal take on how Superman 2 could have been handled - after Zod is dispatched, the people of the world turn against Superman becuase hey this guy could turn bad (hell even bad Supe from 3 could be used in that line) and they reject his help and so eventually Supe decides to go check out Krypton.

Good analysis. And I agree with all your points.

The mixed reactions to SUPERMAN RETURNS, however, are mainly a result of Singer's creative license: the general glum and moody feeling of the movie (drama is fine, but the dreariness never seems to let up), the dark costume, the "kid" (who I have no problems with and feel that his presence and Supe's reaction are a nice emotional touch), the re-hashed plot involving land, the Parker Posey character, and so forth. If Singer had some creative consultant or more involved producer - and I don't mean a gimmicky one like Jon Peters - these problems could have been avoided.

Ah, then again, that's what a director is supposed to do: create his vision onscreen for his audience. It's too bad that Singer's vision of Superman seems to be at odds with the majority of fans and the movie-going public.

Honestly, I cannot wait to see what further visions Bryan Singer has in store for Superman. I'm behind him 100%.

Destoyed along with the other Kryptonian Kryminals() in Superman 2?

NERD ALERT!!!!

I'm hoping we get to see the Kryptonian Language in the next movie. Its shown up a lot in the comics over the last year. That would be cool.