Yep. And in Superman 77 they even show him growing from baby to toddler(?) while traveling in the capsule and hearing Jor-El's voice talking about the galaxies he's traveling through. So there's quite a distance between Earth and Krypton's location.

If you read some of the older Superman stories (especially pre-1985, with very few exceptions...and I mean very few, like "Who took the Super out of Superman" story arc by Elliot S. Maggin and Cary Bates), you'll find that NONE of them are adaptable; they're mostly just dopey stories with the worst adventures you could possibly imagine for Superman. They make SUPERMAN IV look like William Faulkner.

Yeah, back when I read comics (70's and early 80's) Superman comics were ALWAYS a joke. What with Superboy, Superbaby, Supergirl, Superhorse, Supermonkey, Krypto, and his army of Clark and Superman decoy robots. They always also seemed to have a mini 2nd story in the back starring Jimmie Olson or Lois Lane that was beyond dumb.

Don't get me started on how stupid the Fortress of Solitude became (with that giant key and his “hall of trophies”). Superman was an icon because he was familiar and had been around for decades. He didn't become interesting (to me) until the first movie.

I, too, was never ever a fan of Superman - not when he was just a cartoon character on SUPERFRIENDS, and certainly not of the old George Reeves series - until Donner's SUPERMAN film.

When I first heard of the first film (remember, before the days when the internet gave us ALL our information), I thought the worst: Flash Gordon-style design for Krypton, giant yellow key to the Fortress, a Phantom Zone which looked like a spotlight lamp, a Luthor who was a mad scientist, Superman robots who disguised as him as a cover, a shrunken bottle city with thousand of Kryptonians still alive, Superman using super-ventriloquism (believe it!), and so forth.

Thank goodness for Donner, production designer John Barry, and Christopher Reeve.

not wanting to read 11 pages, can someone tell me if they have named the villain in this movie?

Bryan Singer is still attatched to the sequal as far as I know

They have not named a villain, though Spacey is under contract for the sequel. The previous screenwriters may have hinted at Brainiac and/or Darkseid and/or General Zod, but all that may be moot since a new screenplay is being solicited.

It sure does seem that making a good Superman movie is hard.
What made the first two great was it had a good love story to go along with everything else. Maybe they need to recast Lois Lane.

But but but...stuff like giant super keys to the fortress is what made comics fun. Now they're all dark and realistic and that sucks.

ahhh, wouldn't it be nice if Michael Bay did Superman instead of Singer.

EDIT: I forgot to mention Superkittie

It's going to be a 3.5 hour duel to the death with Mxyzptlk.

Well, it would certainly be a lot noisier.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Fixed. That's the 2nd point of the movie that you've brought up which I believe seemed pretty obvious to everyone else but you seem to have missed. Did we watch the same movie or were you just really not paying attention? Or maybe too busy over-analyzing it to the point of disliking?

I really don't care if she is engaged or married, the point is she made a commitement to another a person..and I don't look highly on people walking in and trying to steal fiance..or spying in the privacy of their own home..i think a lot of people would agree (well except for the Bush Wiretapping regime) that the home is a private place and not meant to be easedropped through (either via superpowers or unauthorized unconsitutional wiretaps)

I haven't seen the movie since its theaterical run, don't plan on see it again...so the details that are immaterial to me (engaged, married) and I know that the reason for the return to Krypton was mentioned in the movie, but it made no sense to me at the time and it still doesn't.

I know this has been suggested in this thread already but...

I vote they pull a, "Dallas(JR)" and make the whole Super Kid story a dream. Have the new movie open with Kal-El still in the Capsule headed out of control towards Earth but he's knocked out due to some kinda accident then he wakes up before crashing; or have him wake up in his bed with Ma Kent tending him after safely crash landing near their home and being knocked out for several weeks.

Either way have him wake up and realize everything in "Superman Returns" was a dream.

If he can change the rotation of the planet to reverse time and save Lois from drowning in dirt, he can certainly do it again to protect her from a broken condom. Super-retroactive Abortion!

I know that a lot of women, including my wife, were turned off to the movie because they knew that Superman had a kid and had been gone for 5 years. I tried to explain that he didn't know about the kid (though I think that Lois did know - but probably not when Supes left Earth.) But all she could see him as was a deadbeat dad... not that she would have enjoyed the movie anyway - she hates superhero movies.

Take these two plus the Donner Cut version of pt. 2, and everytime Supes gets into trouble all he does is go back in time. Not exactly "Johnny on the Spot" is he?

He's not changing the rotation of the Earth, it just appears that way because he's traveling so fast to go back in time that things start going in reverse.

I agree it's a copout.

Hating superhero movies to begin with would make it difficult to enjoy SUPERMAN RETURNS no matter what happened, right?

Hey, we have erasers on pencils...Superman goes back in time...it's all about correcting mistakes.

There are definitely ways to get out of the lame corner Singer painted the series into. And the "its all a dream" canard could certainly work (and work well in fact), if they went with the dream being an induced fantasy/delusion- a way of a villan conquering him, by giving him the choice of living in a perfect (near perfect) fantasy world of his own creation.
You could easily use this with a antagonist like Braniac or even Mytzptlk.
obviously this isn't anything new or original, but it has been used well in the animated material and the comics, and stories like this provide the opportunity to really get inside the characters pysche in a way that you can't with a conventional plot. It can, when done right, generate enormous sympathy and empathy for the character- which what this stalker/deadbeat dad/ morose moper Superman needs at this point.

But I don't think Singer is all that creative to recognize how emotional potent this would be, since it hasn't been done before in any of the films he watched as a kid. Singer is basically down to Monkey see Monkey do...and if Donner hasn't done it...

If Singer or anyone else were to dare use the "it was just a dream" idea to eliminate or make-up for any shortcomings some (mind you, not all) fans believe the movie has, then it would be a laughingstock disaster. It would be even a worse cop-out than the going back in time sequence from SUPERMAN, because it would show a resistance to having the character change or grow, and make the studio look weak and stupid for not sticking by their original creative decision in approving the project.

Again, even if half the audience is split in seeing how Singer's vision of Superman, that doesn't mean that it should be overhauled back to square zero. This isn't Jar-Jar Binks we're talking about. Some like the changes (the kid, Superman's feeling of alienation), some don't. It's not exactly mature or a good idea for entertainment to constantly and unwaveringly capitulate to the status quo.

Once again, young 'uns don't recall this, but there was some controversy generated when Superman slept with Lois in SUPERMAN II. Some people and critics felt this was a bad moral move to show him having sex prior to marriage, and others felt it showed that the relationship showed maturity in what has been a two-dimensional character for over forty years.