Well in Superman 77 he had a huge chunk chained on his neck and he could barely stay afloat; yet 2 minutes after it was taken off he was able to crash through the ceiling and towards California at high speed. His powers apparently come back as fast as it goes away under the kryptonite. Also, they didn't "make him solar powered" . Superman has always been Solar powered so that was nothing new. It's our Yellow sun and his Dense Kryptonian physiology that makes him Super.

As far as the "Jesus stuff", the parallels between the Superman and Jesus are pretty clear. Come on man, all through the movie one of the many themes was, "Does the world need a saviour". The scene made perfect sense.

True. But I think one can also view this as a reintroduction to the character. A person can view it and not know all the inside jokes linked to previous films and still understand it.

Sheesh, people always come with the same complaints. Read through the thread, please.

BTW, the landmass had enough of the earth's crust to buffer Superman from the kryptonite structures.

Exactly. Once the pieces of the earth's crust started to fall away, the kryptonite became exposed and that's when Superman started to struggle.

I'd say that people who didn't realize this a) were determined to hate the movie or b) honestly, really didn't like or weren't into the movie. I'm sure it has been option b for most of you and it's completely understandable. When I'm seeing a movie I'm just not into, I miss a lot of things.

plus it was only small bits of kryptonite here and there
and I have a feeling the "new krypton" kryptonite isn't as strong as the meteorite version since it didn't go through the actual physical changes the turned chunks of krypton into original kryptonite

:rolleyes: That is what my friend said, except he was joking. I responded with..."hmmm...why didn't he just were gloves then"....I am sorry but that may work for you, but not me I guess.

With regards to the solar powered Superman stuff, I never really knew that the sun was made him Super. Ok, I can buy that..but is J6p supposed to know that? what does he do at night or in the dark?

Most importantly how can it overpower kryptonite? I mean what is the point of even having a "kryptonite " device in the plot if it can be conveniently thrown aside when the writer wants to? This is suposed to be his achilles heal, yet it is not, so what is the freaking point? Do we ever really care about our "hero' if he never is really in danger to begin with? Now that I know that he can withstand pretty large amounts of kryptonite, why would I be worried at all for him in the next film (assumming I go, which doesn't look promising at all right now).

And Giantrobo brings up the 77 vesrion where the rock around the neck saps his strength...this just proves my point, that was hardly a very large piece of kryptonite compared to the land mass he lifted in this movie, yet it almost did him in. Forget that entirely if you don't need consistency between Donner and Singer films, just look at the inconsitency within this film. A sliver almost kills him, but the city sized piece is fine? Come on, even the biggest fan has to admit that is just lazy writing here....

Or you tend to overlook a lot of things when you are really into a movie. I think both are true. I just couldn't overlook that part. Maybe by then I just wasn't into it because the whole Luthor "evil plan" was incredibly dumb and poorly thought out.

Ok, I will stop posting in this thread now, b/c I know how annoying it is when I really like a film and someone insists on dragging down the thread repeatedly, I have said my piece (and went an read this thread). And it seems that people will give me answers that are supposed to explain these problems I have, unfortuantely none of the answers out there have really satisfied me (i.e. the crust protecting him, sun powering him, only pieces of it were falling on him, etc). It all just seems like a better writer could have easily avoided all of this.

But my biggest problem (besides the Kryptonite is only sometimes bad thing and besides the lazy "evil plan") is the change in the dynamic between Lois and Supes. With the insertion of Richard and the removal of his worry about having to give up his powers. I just didn't like this shift, just a personal preference I guess....anyways, sorry about the rantings....

Perry White explained to J6P that Superman got his powers from the sun. Pay attention to the movie.

The island was not made of kryptonite. The island had veins of kryptonite in it. And you can choose not to believe the land surrounding the island protected him, but they made a specific point of showing Superman cutting the piece out of the earth's crust and exposing the shard of kryptonite as the earth fell away.

Lex ended up on the island because their helicopter ran out of gas while they were running away. Again, pay attentiion to the movie.

Superman was an "only son" sent to Earth by his father to save humanity. I think the movie would be lazy if they DIDN'T draw a comparison with Jesus.

After five years, Lois moved on to a nice, stable guy. You'd rather she still be in love with Superman/Clark without any external conflict? I think this route was far more interesting, but it sounds like you just wanted to see the first movie again.

If you're a Superman fan, you already know this. If you saw the Donner version, Jor-El pretty much says it. That's the core audience right there. But just in case J6p doesn't know it, in this movie, Lois spells it out for you when she's talking to Richard. "Draws his power from the sun". Why do you think he hangs out in space? :DI like to think of it as a rechargeable battery. You don't always have to plug it in. Plus he had all those years when he was young when he wasn't using his powers yet to "charge up". You're thinking Nuclear Man, who actually needs direct sunlight to be able to function. And I don't think invoking Superman IV is healthy in this thread. :D

I don't know what to say. I do see your point dave. I guess there are times when Superman is simply too powerful in different stories and Kryptonite is a way of knocking him on his ass. But if he didn't overcome Kryptonite some how some way even if it doesn't seem logical,then he wouldn't be Superman right? As far as the Solar stuff, think of Superman like a battery. He stores the energy. In the comic story Kingdom Come which occurs in the future, Luthor says that Superman has been on Earth an absorbed solar energy so long that he's nearly invincible. But again, Solar power from our yellow sun isn't the only source of his abilities.


All I can say is that I don't think Superman was 100% as he lifted the rock but Superman's less than 100% is still something. Also,as mentioned before, as soon as the Kryptonite chunks started growing towards him he weakend further and passed out.

I feel like I did see the first movie again, except nowhere near as good. And I WAS paying attention (mostly ;) ), that is why I said I that I understood the whole solar powered thingy, I just never knew it before the film (or maybe I did and forgot). Either way none of that explains why kryptonite is only sometimes bad (to me anyways)...I mean, that is just sloppy, lazy writing.

You also misunderstood my point about Luthor getting stranded on that island. I realize he ran out of gas, but it sure looked like a tropical island to me (as in down south impossibly far away from metropolis), anyways, that was really the least of my problems with this film.

As I said before, I am glad for those people who enjoyed it, I just wish I could have too...oh well. I will give it another try on dvd and see if my mind has changed, it has happened before, so who knows...

I finally got a chance to see this again, this time in Imax 3D. First things first: The 3D was AMAZING. It looked nothing like traditional 3D. I couldn't believe how good it looked. Hell, the trailer for Happy Feet alone was worth the price of admission, but the boat rescue sequence really had my blood racing this time. The 3D is more than just a gimmick.

Now, for the movie: It was better the second time. There are a lot of line that help set up what will happen later, and a second viewing really cements that. Also, it is quite clear to me that the island Lex grows is just phase one of a larger plan. The island will not look like that by the time he offers property to people. So the scheme didn't seem nearly as bad as some people are making it out to be. And it is also clear that Kryptonite doesn't affect Superman immediately, which is why he's able to carry the island while there are chunks of earth separating him from the kryptonite. And I liked Kate Bosworth even more this time around, as well as Brandon Routh. I came out of that thinking, "This is why I go to the movies." It's really well done.

did I mention this already?
take a look at the 3d glasses while wearing polarized sunglasses

Yay! Another person who got much more from SR after a second viewing.

I do remember coming out of my initial viewing a little off-balance, but once I had some time to reflect on what I had watched, I was okay with the new direction the film took, and subsequent viewings have allowed me to grasp more of the nuances of storytelling between how the characters interact with each other from their own point of view, rather than just existing as plot devices to get from scene A to scene B. That's easy to miss on the first viewing, but as you get inside each main character's head and see their own perspective of the situation, the film plays much more smoother and quicker than initially.

Havin' seen it three times, I can say there are things that I apperciate with each viewing, but on the same note, that no matter how many times I watch it, I can't help but feel that Singer ruined it with the "vague history" nonsense.

Not exactly a review of the movie, but some may find this anecdote amusing...

I was wheeling my 4-year old daughter through the toy department at Wal-mart earlier today. As we passed one of the big displays of Superman Returns merchandise, she pointed at one of the larger figures and exclaimed, "Look Daddy! Superman! uhhh...Daddy, I think there's something wrong. They made the cape the wrong color."

I've never been more proud of her.

I'm currently rewatching Spider-Man 2, which I really enjoy, and I just noticed something that's been missing from the recent DC franchise films: a catchy pop tune to sell soundtracks.

Not that I'm complaining, by any means. The reliance upon an actual score to help tell the story indicates, at least to me, a confidence in the director, actors, and overall production value of the film. Not having the big blockbuster tune attached to a film adds a bit of operatic credibility and shows that the studios don't need a top 40 hit to tie in to the film. However, that's just my two cents.

Well, Smallville does enough of the pop song pimping on the (now) CW, so Superman Returns tone doesn't really need the pop songs (plus they didn't have it in the previous 4 Superman films either).

If memory serves, Superman III tried to pimp some god-awful tunes. I think one was by Chaka Khan.

Yup. The spectacularly poor SUPERMAN III soundtrack contained a handful of woefully forgettable and regrettable tunes by Giorgio Moroder, performed by artists like Chaka Khan, Roger Miller, Marshal Crenshaw, and Helen St. John, who wrote a tuneless love theme for the movie. (For whatever reason, the Lois Lane/Love Theme from Superman was never used again anywhere in SUPERMAN III.)

There was a "Sounds of Superman" CD released in conjunction with Superman Returns that was sort of a defacto soundtrack.

Truth be told, I've pretty much blocked most of Superman III and IV out of my mind, so if there were pop songs in those movies, I don't recall, and don't want to recall! :D

"No see, no cry"

- Chaka Khan (SUPERMAN III soundtrack)

<b>BANNED!!!</b>


:grunt: