Superman Returns Is A Wimp

[GrimmPimp]

Why did they get such a small guy to play superman? I understand that in Smallville the actor playing Superman is supposed to be a teenager, so he hasnt filled out yet but coudnt they get a actor that didnt look like a Abercrombie model? If they just had to use this guy couldnt they have artifically inflated him? I mean Baseball players do it why cant the actor protaraying the Man of Steel?

[Alan2099]

He looks about the same size Chris and Dean did.

[Kara Zor El]

The problem is that Christopher Reeves was Superman. He was born to play the role. He has Superman's face period. So anything is downhill from there. But Chris wasn't massive. He was lythe. He pumped up more as the shoot went on though.

[lonewolf23k]

Why did they get such a small guy to play superman? I understand that in Smallville the actor playing Superman is supposed to be a teenager, so he hasnt filled out yet but coudnt they get a actor that didnt look like a Abercrombie model? If they just had to use this guy couldnt they have artifically inflated him? I mean Baseball players do it why cant the actor protaraying the Man of Steel?

Go watch the new Trailer, where a bullet bounces off Superman's eyeball, and THEN tell me he's a wimp with a straight face.

Build doesn't make Superman. Good special effects do.

In fact, the fact that Superman doesn't look more atlhetic then the guy next door only makes his superpowered feats more incredible..

To quote Fred Perry: "In comics, Power is determined and percieved by the reaction of the object, not the force behind it."

[theflyingfrogunderdog]

The problem is that Christopher Reeves was Superman. He was born to play the role. He has Superman's face period. So anything is downhill from there. But Chris wasn't massive. He was lythe. He pumped up more as the shoot went on though.

I think George Reeves looked more like Superman.

[SuperManny]

Build doesn't make Superman. Good special effects do.
....
To quote Fred Perry: "In comics, Power is determined and percieved by the reaction of the object, not the force behind it."

The problem with that argument is that his complaint has to do with the fact that Christopher Reeve gave an aura of seriousness and power. In other words: he was a good actor for the part. He drew his inspiration from the famous "strong and silent type" actor, Cary Grant. It wasn't solely the special effects.

Time will tell if Routh can accomplish that aura of bad-assness.

[CaptainAwesome]

Reeves was an excellent character actor. You could really see a big difference between Superman and Clark Kent. The only way that Routh will be able to pull this off is if he can do that as well as reeves did.

[JuggernautRM]

I hope we just dont' have a Superman version of NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! from Episode 3.

Its always a scary thing to see Superman scream, and Reeves did it perfectly in the first movie.

[Hellcow]

Its true Superman's strength does not come from his size. But when a character gives a huge display of strength on screen, it often helps sell the shot if they at least look strong.

[Deskad]

Did you SEE Routh's frikkin arms when he crossed them? If anything he looks more buff the Reeves did.

[sugmasterflex]

Why did they get such a small guy to play superman? I understand that in Smallville the actor playing Superman is supposed to be a teenager, so he hasnt filled out yet but coudnt they get a actor that didnt look like a Abercrombie model? If they just had to use this guy couldnt they have artifically inflated him? I mean Baseball players do it why cant the actor protaraying the Man of Steel?

Routh is like 6-4 240. That's small?

[GrimmPimp]

proportionatly yes 6/4 240 isnt all that big

[SemiNerd]

He got the role because Brian Singer is gay, and he wanted a homosexual in the role of Superman, to give gay kids a role model, since Superman lives a double life just as homos do.

This is no joke

[GrimmPimp]

He got the role because Brian Singer is gay, and he wanted a homosexual in the role of Superman, to give gay kids a role model, since Superman lives a double life just as homos do.

This is no joke

Truly Profound

[dancj]

He looks about the same size Chris and Dean did.

Dean Cain was a terrible Superman and never looked nearly big enough.

Routh is like 6-4 240. That's small?

Routh's size is fine, but when you see a full height shot of him, his legs are huge, but his arms and chest pale by comparison. From the moving shots I've seen though, I think he's going to be fine.

[kmeyers]

Why did they get such a small guy to play superman? I understand that in Smallville the actor playing Superman is supposed to be a teenager, so he hasnt filled out yet but coudnt they get a actor that didnt look like a Abercrombie model? If they just had to use this guy couldnt they have artifically inflated him? I mean Baseball players do it why cant the actor protaraying the Man of Steel?
small guy? 6'4, 240 is not small by any stretch of the imagination. Besides Superman should not be built like Arnold Schwarzenaegger.

[Steel Spider]

I think Routh is closer to 6ft 2" and a half. Not that far off 6' 4" but not quite there.

[Solario]

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6214/supercomparision38er.jpg

[Titan76]

Routh is like 6-4 240. That's small?
Routh is not 6-4. I saw him at the Wonder Con this year and I would say he is 6-2 tops. Also when I saw him at the Con there is no way in hell that guy could be 240 pounds. Unless he lost most of his weight after filming because this guy was one skinny ass guy. When I saw him at the Con I would say he is 220 tops, no more then that.

[PatrickG]

Could be lean muscle. It depends on what kind of working out he does.

Honestly, Routh's costume and build doesn't bother me.

I think his trunks would look better if the beltline was higher, simply because his torso looks way too long, contributing to the "Abercrombie model" perception and makes him look less traditionally barrel chested.

Beyond that, his hair looks off to me. It seems too long in the back and... too parted. I assume they did this to make the Clark transformation easier but still...

Reeve wore a hairpiece in both roles... But his Clark hair was fairly obviously longer. It looks like they wanted Reeve's "Clark hair" so they made Superman's longer.

I don't have a problem with the length on top but I just have trouble visually accepting Superman with much more that a tapered cut in the back.

His acting looks fine to me.

Now, I would like to see the hair reworked and maybe some tweaks to the costume in the sequel to make him look less.... elongated.

But I think he'll be pretty incredible as Superman as is.

[Gernot]

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6214/supercomparision38er.jpg

Who is the very first gentleman in the Superman costume? I recognize Ray Middleton, and I thought HE was the first to portray Superman. :)

[King Krypton]

He got the role because Brian Singer is gay, and he wanted a homosexual in the role of Superman, to give gay kids a role model, since Superman lives a double life just as homos do.

This is no joke

In Routh's defense--and after realizing how awful his acting is, I can't believe I'm saying this--he has a steady girlfriend, and has had one for years. There's no truth to the "gay Superman" rumors.

The issue, to me, is not his build. Superman's been leaner before. It's his monotone (and occasionally Shatner-esque pausing) delivery and lack of any facial expression that's the real issue.

[onenatv]

He got the role because Brian Singer is gay, and he wanted a homosexual in the role of Superman, to give gay kids a role model, since Superman lives a double life just as homos do.

This is no joke
Dude, stop accusing people without any proove to back it up. I think this is a very offensive thing you said.

[Catman]

Despite my reservations on the costume itself, I can pretty much get over the changes in the costume. Routh's very limited lines in the trailers that have been released so far is what bothers me. Come June 30th, we will all know for sure how good or horrid his acting is, but from what I've seen just by going off the trailers, I cant say I'm really at all impressed with his delivery.

Routh looks ok for the most part, but he does look a bit younger than I was originally anticipating the guy who would ultimately land the role of Superman to be.

Honestly, there are times where I believe he looks quite similar to Superboy-Prime.

[Mia]

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6214/supercomparision38er.jpg


Routh actually looks bigger than Reeve. Mike O'Hearn who was in the 'World's Finest' mock up trailer. Actually looked good as Superman. But Mike's a body builder.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mikeohearn.com/updates/DSC07547-400.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mikeohearn.com/updates/updates.html&h=300&w=400&sz=131&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=j6Wio0oOWy0_JM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmike%2Bo%2527hearn%2Bsuperman%2B%26sv num%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

I think the real problem here, as Supermanny mentioned. Is that Reeve added an aura of seriousness and gravitas to the role that Routh does not appear to have. Routh just looks way too much like light weight. They should have cast an older actor for the role.

[Catman]

They should have cast an older actor for the role.

Any thoughts on who you think would have made a good older Superman?

[Legato]

Not this again.:rolleyes: Routh is Superman so either deal with it or dont watch the freaking movie.


Because complaining about Routh being Superman is not gonna get the folks to change the casting at the last minute or just take Routh out of the franchise completly,unless Routh has other projects.

[phantom1592]

My only problem is the 'age' factor in the story line. They want to count the first two movies, and then say Clark was gone "for a while" and when he gets back lois has a kid that's at least a few years old. Yet Lois and Clark still look like College kids to me.

For this late in their lives, they should have had 30+ year old actors.

[Legato]

Any thoughts on who you think would have made a good older Superman?

I think Routh is just fine so Im not even gonna bother making a casting choice.

They way I se it if the fans got their wish on Welling being Superman then you would still have other people bitching about him being too young to be Superman or something.

[Catman]

My only problem is the 'age' factor in the story line. They want to count the first two movies, and then say Clark was gone "for a while" and when he gets back lois has a kid that's at least a few years old. Yet Lois and Clark still look like College kids to me.

For this late in their lives, they should have had 30+ year old actors.

Thats a valid point.

I especially love in keeping in context with the film, that right at the end of Superman 2, we see Superman say something to the president about sorry for being away for so long, and I wont let you down again.

Then up and leaves for 5-6 years.

What?

They way I se it if the fans got their wish on Welling being Superman then you would still have other people bitching about him being too young to be Superman or something.

Thats true.

Casting an unknown was somewhat of a risky move on Singer's part. And people would have bitched either way. Now casting an unknown obviously worked out tremendously for Donner, but this isnt necessarily always the case when casting an unknown in a big budget movie. We'll certainly find out what the verdict on Routh come June 30th.

[10xPete]

I think that the movie is going to be really good. Yeah, I think Superman is a bit younger and slightly smaller than I expected but a body builder might look even stupider. What bugs me is Lois having a kid. what's with that? I'm sure it will make sense in the movie. It will be interesting to have all our questions answered.

[Tom]

Dude, stop accusing people without any proove to back it up. I think this is a very offensive thing you said.
Singer is gay and long before the role was cast, mused in an interview with the gay press that he would love to cast a gay actor in the role to make a point. Online fandom took this as fact when it was nothing more than a "What I'd really like to do is..." type of statement.

[Legato]

I think that the movie is going to be really good. Yeah, I think Superman is a bit younger and slightly smaller than I expected but a body builder might look even stupider. What bugs me is Lois having a kid. what's with that? I'm sure it will make sense in the movie. It will be interesting to have all our questions answered.

The only way I could accept the decision of Lois having a kid is if the kid turns out to be adopted. Having him actually be Lois's son would be silly.

[Kara Zor El]

I think George Reeves looked more like Superman.

fair enough.

lets face it it's one of those roles where casting is crucial.

James Bond can be played by a multitude of very different actor types, but Supes aint like that at all.

[Kara Zor El]

He got the role because Brian Singer is gay, and he wanted a homosexual in the role of Superman, to give gay kids a role model, since Superman lives a double life just as homos do.

This is no joke

You should change your forum name to Rorschach.

[Choppa]

How many baseball players do you know that look like chrisopher reeves?

It's supposed to be a sequel, how wierd would it look if Superman didn't look anything like he did before?

[TheAmazingSpiderfan]

Good Actor > Good Body

Anyone can buff up. I would rather have a wimpy superman then a buff guy who isn't a credible actor.

It's supposed to be a sequel, how wierd would it look if Superman didn't look anything like he did before?

Because Clooney and Kilmer looked EXACTLY like Michael Keaton?

[Mike Smith]

The only way I could accept the decision of Lois having a kid is if the kid turns out to be adopted. Having him actually be Lois's son would be silly.

No, what would be cool is if Lois and Lex had an affair, tried to cover it up, and the sequel takes place on the set of Jerry Springer.

Such conflict for Supes, whose the real Dad (three possible guys), the suspense would kill. Maybe Lex could even throw a kryptonite chair at Supes.

Seriously though, I agree. I hope they don't try to create conflict by Lois actually having actually went out and had a kid with someone else.

[theflyingfrogunderdog]

Singer is gay and long before the role was cast, mused in an interview with the gay press that he would love to cast a gay actor in the role to make a point. Online fandom took this as fact when it was nothing more than a "What I'd really like to do is..." type of statement.

That explains the X-Men in gay bar attire and Superman in little speedos.

[rickfury188]

Why did they get such a small guy to play superman? I understand that in Smallville the actor playing Superman is supposed to be a teenager, so he hasnt filled out yet but coudnt they get a actor that didnt look like a Abercrombie model? If they just had to use this guy couldnt they have artifically inflated him? I mean Baseball players do it why cant the actor protaraying the Man of Steel?

Wow. Just wow. Why the f**k would you want an Abercrombie model to portray Superman? Are you that superficial?? Superman is supposed to embody truth, justice, and the American way, and no Abercrombie model can give you that, PLUS be an actor.

[Grazzt]

Wow. Just wow. Why the f**k would you want an Abercrombie model to portray Superman?

Actually, he's complaining that the guy looks like an Abercrombie model.

[GreenHornet]

I have gotten into this before about the size of Supes. Well think about it for a sec. If there was a "Superman" who had the powers think about how much harder he would have to work to get any type of muscle bulding going? I mean he would have to use old moth-ball ships to work out, THEN talk about how much protein who you have to take to feed a work out like that.

[GreenHornet]

I myself have gotten to the point to were I can't even touch my own shoulders so if you had someone that big playing Superman wouldn't he be spotted as Clark in a sec?

[Mike Pothier]

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6214/supercomparision38er.jpg

Sweet picture. The two on the upper left will give me nightmares though.

By far, my favorite is Kirk Alyn's Superman.

[Patman]

I think the costume choices are the problem because they don't flatter Routh's body lines.

They need to get rid of the high collar on the top, leaving it low (like Reeve's costume) would have been better.

Also, they needed to raise the red pants line about 2"-3" higher to minimize the length of Routh's torso. The current costume makes his torso looks far too long and out of proportion with his legs. The Reeve costume is much better in this respect as well.

Also, since Routh has such a long torso, they should have kept the size of the "S" emblem as large as the Reeve costume because the smaller size of the emblem also points out that Routh's torso is out of proportion with the rest of his body in that costume.

The costume designer simply screwed up. I've seen photoshopped changes to the current design and it makes Routh look much better than the current costume now.

Here's one before/after that features that I would have like to have seen for this film:

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/5673/supesphineasbg16ol.th.jpg (http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/9850/supesphineasbg14yd.jpg)

[Mike Smith]

It just donned on me that Routh's S-curl is inverted.

[Violently Apathetic]

Here's one before/after that features that I would have like to have seen for this film:

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/5673/supesphineasbg16ol.th.jpg (http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/9850/supesphineasbg14yd.jpg)

Wow, the improvement is quite striking, at least to me. Who knew it would be that simple? Well, aside from Patman, obviously...

[Grazzt]

Here's one before/after that features that I would have like to have seen for this film:

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/5673/supesphineasbg16ol.th.jpg (http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/9850/supesphineasbg14yd.jpg)

I might have had the collar-line a smidge lower, and I preferred how low the boots were in the first one, but other than that its perfect!

[lonewolf23k]

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/5673/supesphineasbg16ol.th.jpg (http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/9850/supesphineasbg14yd.jpg)

The "after" picture makes him look shorter to me..

[theflyingfrogunderdog]

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/5673/supesphineasbg16ol.th.jpg (http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/9850/supesphineasbg14yd.jpg)

That pic really shows how ugly the brown boots, speedo and cape is.

[Catman]

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/5673/supesphineasbg16ol.th.jpg (http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/9850/supesphineasbg14yd.jpg)

Looking at those pics really validates something Alex Ross said about how he believes the costume designers on Superman Returns wanted something different just for the sake of being different.
He also added that this costume wouldnt have been anything like what he would have envisioned.

After > Before

[Eliseu Gouveia]

Great pic, it really addresses exactly the things that bug me about the movie costume.

the stripperwear speedos, the tiny S, the collar, the brownish colours, the short boots, the redundant "S" on the belt... it really lost that bold, dashing feel the comics costume had.

[G'nort]

the reason why the symbol is so small, is that in the begining, they fell in love with the idea of the symbol being a solid plate on his chest. they made it smaller because if it was any bigger, routh would get stabbed every time he moved his arms.

the collar is so high because routh is wearing a body suit underneath the costume to make him bigger. A lower collar would have made it harder to conceal.

I suppose the shorts are the way they are because of the way the symbol is. If they gave him big underwear with a small symbol, it would look retarded. so they made it lower to balance out the costume.

I still wouldve liked to see a brighter red used in it tho. but I think I can live with this costume.

the only major complaints I have with the look of superman, was pointed out earlier that the hair on the back of his head was a bit long. And that routh is a few years younger than Tom Welling from smallville.

lastly, Tom wouldve made a terrible superman. I mean, right now hes playing a "what if superman had his own teen drama" thing. wich is fine. but I wouldnt trust him with a movie like this. He would just keep doing that weird thing with his eyebrows like he does on the show. He has said numerous times that he didnt ever want to wear the tights. Also, he didnt even want to play the character of superboy in the first place from what Ive heard in interviews.

[King Krypton]

Singer is gay and long before the role was cast, mused in an interview with the gay press that he would love to cast a gay actor in the role to make a point. Online fandom took this as fact when it was nothing more than a "What I'd really like to do is..." type of statement.

Rich Johnston made that claim. Singer never said anything of the kind.

That said, he still didn't cast any of the roles right.

[WolverinesSon]

I wish they just would've ended the Smallville series with Clark moving to metropolis and they could've used the guy that plays him in the series for the movies. I'm already used to seeing him as Clark. He plays it well.

[Lord of Denial]

I went and saw X3 and before it the had a new Superman Trailer. Brandon in many scenes looked pretty damn big and buff.

[phantom1592]

In Routh's defense--and after realizing how awful his acting is, I can't believe I'm saying this--he has a steady girlfriend, and has had one for years. There's no truth to the "gay Superman" rumors.



I can't believe anyone would take something like that serious anyway. IF a major worldwide Icon HAPPENED to be gay, the media would have flooded the world with articles/pictures/interviews. Pro-gay would have run with it till we were sick of hearing it, and non-gay would raised an uproar.

regardless, the first place I heard about it would NOT be on a forum page a mere 2 months before the movies release:rolleyes:



Common sense people, recognize the world we live in :p

[Lord of Denial]

Who cares if he is gay? It should have nothing to do with anything. If the guy is right for the part he is right for it. If he can act and pull it off then that is all that matters.

[phantom1592]

Who cares if he is gay? It should have nothing to do with anything. If the guy is right for the part he is right for it. If he can act and pull it off then that is all that matters.

The tabloid world that we live in would have cared. And they would have talked about it. Lots.

[Lord of Denial]

The tabloid world that we live in would have cared. And they would have talked about it. Lots.


Not what I meant!

I mean as a fan who cares if he is gay?

Should it matter to you or I?

[Choppa]

Good Actor >

Because Clooney and Kilmer looked EXACTLY like Michael Keaton?


I didn't know that Shumacher was directing this. I thought it was Brian Singer, who in his previous two x-men movies, kept the same actors through each film.

[Tom]

Rich Johnston made that claim. Singer never said anything of the kind.

That said, he still didn't cast any of the roles right.
No, he did say it in an interview with a gay magazine.

[Tom]

I can't believe anyone would take something like that serious anyway. IF a major worldwide Icon HAPPENED to be gay, the media would have flooded the world with articles/pictures/interviews. Hollywood, throughout its entire century-long history, has always been full of closeted gay actors who never got outed by the press. It continues up to the present day.

[phantom1592]

a little rarer now days.

We now live in a world where some singers kid slips out of a highchair, and is on the front page of Papers across the country. Tabloids are FULL of stuff nobody should care about.

It's a little harder to keep secrets. And if a gay man was playing the Ultimate Iconic male, it would have been "news".

[Choppa]

a little rarer now days.

We now live in a world where some singers kid slips out of a highchair, and is on the front page of Papers across the country. Tabloids are FULL of stuff nobody should care about.

It's a little harder to keep secrets. And if a gay man was playing the Ultimate Iconic male, it would have been "news".


Well did you know that in an original version Jimmy Olsen was going to be gay? That didn't exactly make the headlines.

[Tom]

a little rarer now days.

We now live in a world where some singers kid slips out of a highchair, and is on the front page of Papers across the country. Tabloids are FULL of stuff nobody should care about.

It's a little harder to keep secrets. And if a gay man was playing the Ultimate Iconic male, it would have been "news".
That would be true if we had a bunch of out gay actors but we don't. The press is not in the habit of outing gay people even today.

[phantom1592]

Well did you know that in an original version Jimmy Olsen was going to be gay? That didn't exactly make the headlines.

It didn't happen either. The media doesn't like to reveal "spoilers" for movies like that too often. Also they don't talk much about the first drafts of movies.


I just don't believe the gay community would have let a casting like that go without getting out the trumpets. SOMEBODY would have talked.

[Kara Zor El]

I didn't know that Shumacher was directing this. I thought it was Brian Singer, who in his previous two x-men movies, kept the same actors through each film.

At the end of the day this isn't really a sequal. Because Superman 2 happens in when was it 1980 or there abouts? So if this is a direct sequal to that then it's 26 years later. And nobody has aged. In fact some have got younger. And you can't say well actually Brian is saying that Superman 2 is only five years ago beacuse it just isn't. Everone would have mobile phones, fashoines would be different, cars, phoneboxes, everything almost. So it's the oddest sequal ever.

If it was to be a direct sequal to Superman 2, then going by your mantra he should have cast all the living actors from that movie into this, Hackmen etc... and had a fifty odd year old Superman, who may or may not have physically aged.

Singer is asking us to reimagine Superman 2 as a movie set in 2001 or there abouts. Very stupid.

Why he didn't just start again instead of letting his love for the old franchise interfeer lacks professionalism and credibilty. However he is a wonderful film maker and I reckon it will be an enjoyable film.

[WoodenDummy]

Who the hell cares if he is gay!? Dear God as long as he plays Clark/Superman how he should be played who gives a damn. Even is he is, he's an actor, THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.

FFS Ian Mckellen is gay, does that mean he shouldn't play Magneto!? It's not like he ran around "looking gay" in his big cloak!

If they made Superman bigger on film it would look very weird, it doesn't work on film. Movies are not comics and that's why they changed the X-Men uniforms to black leather.

[Lord of Denial]

At the end of the day this isn't really a sequal. Because Superman 2 happens in when was it 1980 or there abouts? So if this is a direct sequal to that then it's 26 years later. And nobody has aged. In fact some have got younger. And you can't say well actually Brian is saying that Superman 2 is only five years ago beacuse it just isn't. Everone would have mobile phones, fashoines would be different, cars, phoneboxes, everything almost. So it's the oddest sequal ever.

If it was to be a direct sequal to Superman 2, then going by your mantra he should have cast all the living actors from that movie into this, Hackmen etc... and had a fifty odd year old Superman, who may or may not have physically aged.

Singer is asking us to reimagine Superman 2 as a movie set in 2001 or there abouts. Very stupid.

Why he didn't just start again instead of letting his love for the old franchise interfeer lacks professionalism and credibilty. However he is a wonderful film maker and I reckon it will be an enjoyable film.


Yeah asking us to believe the actors are the right age is insane. We should really truly believe that he was rocketed from a doomed planet and bullets bounce off his chest and he is weak to fragments of his home planet.

It is a comic book movie people. In the Comics the man has been near the same damn age for 70 freaking years.

Check plausability at the door. seesh:rolleyes:

[Hellcow]

I heard a rumor they based the shooting schedule to fit in with mardi gras

[PatrickG]

Actually, Singer has recently said that SUPERMAN II doesn't factor in at all and the novelization confirms this is some pretty key places.

Read on...

Zod has not been released from the Phantom Zone, by the novel's account although we know that the 1978 Donner movie had to have happened almost verbatim given the dozens of references to it in this film, in terms of film and dialogue. There are no *spoken* references to Zod in the novel and it's said that Jor-El placed him in the Phantom Zone and Superman knows this but has never met Zod.

The ONLY possible reference to SUPERMAN II seems to be that Luthor remembers going to the Fortress of Solitude before. And everywhere else? We're pretty definitely lead to believe that ONLY the first movie happened.

Basically...

Six months after the first Superman movie, a newspaper headline sends Superman into space without a goodbye. And the headline itself is a major bit of news I haven't seen spoiled anywhere so... I won't either.

This movie is five years and six months after the first movie and the characters seem to be treated as being in their late 20s or early 30s.

[King Krypton]

Why he didn't just start again instead of letting his love for the old franchise interfeer lacks professionalism and credibilty.

The origin has been done to death. How many times has it been done in various media, 10? At least? Avoiding the origin was the one smart thing he did.

However, he would have been SMARTER to make a movie about an established Superman that was totally separate from any prior version. Judging from his Daffy Duck Lex Luthor, he doesn't understand the Reeve films nearly enough to recreate their feel and style. A movie about an established Superman, with no ties to past film and TV interpretations, would have better served us.

[Mike Smith]

I just saw the fourth trailer, and I dunno, my excitement grows even more.

[Ontir]

For years, people were saying "why don't they just pretend the crappy ones didn't happen, and make a good follow-up to the good ones?" Singer does that, and still people bitch!

Between the last Superman cartoon, Smallville, the next cartoon, whatever they do in the Legion cartoon, Lois & Clark, Superboy, the short-lived Supermancartoon from the 80's, I thin the origin is pretty well covered! There are some really interesting things in the Donner Krypton, that would be fun to explore - which is what Singer's doing.

What I've seen of the story has a logic to it - which makes it a great deal better than any of the other proposals I've seen for years! Routh isn't some 5'4" wimp, he's a big guy. I watched him on One Life to Live, and enjoyed his work there, I think he's going to be fine.

[Lord of Denial]

For years, people were saying "why don't they just pretend the crappy ones didn't happen, and make a good follow-up to the good ones?" Singer does that, and still people bitch!

Between the last Superman cartoon, Smallville, the next cartoon, whatever they do in the Legion cartoon, Lois & Clark, Superboy, the short-lived Supermancartoon from the 80's, I thin the origin is pretty well covered! There are some really interesting things in the Donner Krypton, that would be fun to explore - which is what Singer's doing.

What I've seen of the story has a logic to it - which makes it a great deal better than any of the other proposals I've seen for years! Routh isn't some 5'4" wimp, he's a big guy. I watched him on One Life to Live, and enjoyed his work there, I think he's going to be fine.

I agree. You would be hard pressed to find a person in the world who does not know Supermans basic origin. So why waste valuable screen time on something everyone already knows. Then that screen time could be devoted to thinks we have not seen before.

[Kara Zor El]

The origin has been done to death. How many times has it been done in various media, 10? At least? Avoiding the origin was the one smart thing he did.

However, he would have been SMARTER to make a movie about an established Superman that was totally separate from any prior version. Judging from his Daffy Duck Lex Luthor, he doesn't understand the Reeve films nearly enough to recreate their feel and style. A movie about an established Superman, with no ties to past film and TV interpretations, would have better served us.

I didn't say he should do the origin again. Which has only been done once in film. I think that would be totally unecassary. I said he should start again. as in his own continuity. Break from previous films. But there would be absolutely no need to to an origin.
You could however, during the opening credits do a very fast, first page of the old comics style of bringing the audiance up to date.
"Rocketed from the dying planet of Krypton..." sort of thing.
Like the old Fliescher cartoons did.

[Kara Zor El]

For years, people were saying "why don't they just pretend the crappy ones didn't happen, and make a good follow-up to the good ones?" Singer does that, and still people bitch!

Between the last Superman cartoon, Smallville, the next cartoon, whatever they do in the Legion cartoon, Lois & Clark, Superboy, the short-lived Supermancartoon from the 80's, I thin the origin is pretty well covered! There are some really interesting things in the Donner Krypton, that would be fun to explore - which is what Singer's doing.

What I've seen of the story has a logic to it - which makes it a great deal better than any of the other proposals I've seen for years! Routh isn't some 5'4" wimp, he's a big guy. I watched him on One Life to Live, and enjoyed his work there, I think he's going to be fine.

I've certainly never said that the bad ones should be somehow whiped from the cannon at all. So that makes it okay for me to not like it. Don't lump me in with those guys. What is is. I actuallly like lots of bits in part 3. I love the evil superman bit and his fight with Clark.
If you have a strong imagination and good writing abilty why on Earth would you want to do anything but your own version?
And then if you do make a sequal to something set in the 1970's and set the sequal now, then you should age the characters apropriatly, which would be intersting but isolating for the younger audiance it is aimed at. So the best bet is just impress the hell out of us all with your difinitive version of Superman.

[Dood Lee]

You could however, during the opening credits do a very fast, first page of the old comics style of bringing the audiance up to date.
"Rocketed from the dying planet of Krypton..." sort of thing.
Like the old Fliescher cartoons did.

They are doing exactly that.

[En Sabah Nur...]

I agree this new guy is blah. Not cuz he's small, but cuz he looks CORNY AS HELL. And nerdy, and fake, and plastic. You seen his hair? Wtf. You'd think they'd update Superman for today's day and age but no they're going backwards. Not one person I know, likes it. And no offense to anyone but I belive that 90% of the people's reaction was "wow that is gay" lmao.

And as for Cristopher Reeve's being born to play Superman...wow. Hell NO.

People just say that cuz it feels right after all these years and cuz he's dead and an icon and blah blah. Truth is those movies were corny too, and he was NOTHING like what I pictured superman, and he didn't really even look like clark kent to me.

As far as Tom Welling, he is bigger built then this guy now and alot more belivable as both superman and as clark. He has an everyman quality and I can belive he's from this day and age and can belive he's just a normal dude when he's clark and can belive he's a hero when he's flyiing around.

This guy..not even close.


Being big doesn't mean anything. It has to be belivable, and clark kent isnt a body builder. He doesnt get his powers from his big muscles but from the sun and blah blah so his size is irrelevant.


and the girl that plays lois = blah

wooden and not beliveable too

[ancientages]

Ok guys, it's very simple. If you are a serious guy and you know what is good creatively and you respect the real quality of comic books, you will realise that superman returns is rubbish.
Having Superman, the most positive and goody-two-shoes hero, have a cape with the colour of blood and a dark costume is astonishing. With an 's' on the belt and boots that look like something you could buy in a shop is very weird.
From all the trailers i have seen, Brandon Routh cannot act. He does not inspire and his expressions are very wooden.
The whole look of the film is wrong as well. It's too dark and there are times when i can't even see what is going on.
I can go on and on but I'd like to end this post visually.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7576/2376/1600/THE%20COMPARISON.png

Now tell me who looks like superman and who looks like some guy in a superman suit.

[Dood Lee]

Ok guys, it's very simple. If you are a serious guy and you know what is good creatively and you respect the real quality of comic books, you will realise that superman returns is rubbish.


You're saying that if people like Superman Returns then they don't care about quality comics? That's ridiculous.

You can play the picture game all you want, but comparing really good Reeve photos to crappy Routh ones won't prove your point. It's already been shown that the suit isn't as dark as first released photo was. Also, there are a ton of shots that show Routh in a more convincing light.

The only problem I have with Routh is his acting. It is definitely stiff, but what else would you expect from someone who has had almost no professional acting experience? Anyone can be made to look like Superman. The Returns suit may not be the best representation of the suit, but it still keeps the majority of the elements of what a Superman suit should look like.

[Kara Zor El]

And as for Cristopher Reeve's being born to play Superman...wow. Hell NO.

People just say that cuz it feels right after all these years and cuz he's dead and an icon and blah blah. Truth is those movies were corny too, and he was NOTHING like what I pictured superman, and he didn't really even look like clark kent to me.



Maybe some shallow people feel that way but not this person. I couldn't give a drok about Christopher Reeve the real person. For me he has the perfect face for Superman and a lot of other people think that way too. and he most definately was born to play that role. You have to remember all the other actors and boxers that the producers wanted for the role. You have to remember the fact that Reeve came into the picture very late on. The whole film's success rested on the audiance's belief in a man being able to fly.
He was an unknown and the film genre was also unknown. It was a huge risk casting Reeve but he pulled it off and the audiances loved his portrayal of the icon.

This time round we've had a lot of big budget comic book movies. It's all been leading up to Superman Returns. So the weight of the role is'nt anyhting like as heavy. Sure comic book fans may well rip him up but a general movie going audiance will probably accept him at face value and enjoy the movie because of the effects and action.

[Alan2099]

And as for Cristopher Reeve's being born to play Superman...wow. Hell NO.

People just say that cuz it feels right after all these years and cuz he's dead and an icon and blah blah. Truth is those movies were corny too, and he was NOTHING like what I pictured superman, and he didn't really even look like clark kent to me.

As far as Tom Welling, he is bigger built then this guy now and alot more belivable as both superman and as clark. He has an everyman quality and I can belive he's from this day and age and can belive he's just a normal dude when he's clark and can belive he's a hero when he's flyiing around.

This guy..not even close.

Just the fact that you think Tom Welling makes a better Superman than Christopher Reeve, indicated that not only are we not on the same page, I doubt we're even reading the same book.

And for the record, just about everybody I know thinks Routh looks the part.

[King Krypton]

I didn't say he should do the origin again. Which has only been done once in film.

The radio show.

Fleischer.

Alyn.

Reeves.

Reeve.

Super Friends.

Superboy.

S: TAS.

Smallville

Lois & Clark.

Recapped on JLU.

The origin's been done many, MANY times before on film, and at least once on radio.

People just say that cuz it feels right after all these years and cuz he's dead and an icon and blah blah. Truth is those movies were corny too, and he was NOTHING like what I pictured superman, and he didn't really even look like clark kent to me.

As far as Tom Welling, he is bigger built then this guy now and alot more belivable as both superman and as clark. He has an everyman quality and I can belive he's from this day and age and can belive he's just a normal dude when he's clark and can belive he's a hero when he's flyiing around.

Tom Weliing won't ever play Superman. He refuses to.

Ok guys, it's very simple. If you are a serious guy and you know what is good creatively and you respect the real quality of comic books, you will realise that superman returns is rubbish.
Having Superman, the most positive and goody-two-shoes hero, have a cape with the colour of blood and a dark costume is astonishing. With an 's' on the belt and boots that look like something you could buy in a shop is very weird.

Every single, solitary thing about the costume has been done before in the comic books and in other media. You have no valid argument here. You also have no valid argument about. Routh's looks, since two versions of Superman look alike even in the comics. The only valid argument you have is his lack of acting talent. Otherwise you're picking fights where there's no reason to.

[ancientages]

ok yeh, my other points may be debated. But, can anyone please tell me if he can actually act?

[kmeyers]

Ok guys, it's very simple. If you are a serious guy and you know what is good creatively and you respect the real quality of comic books, you will realise that superman returns is rubbish.
Having Superman, the most positive and goody-two-shoes hero, have a cape with the colour of blood and a dark costume is astonishing. With an 's' on the belt and boots that look like something you could buy in a shop is very weird.
From all the trailers i have seen, Brandon Routh cannot act. He does not inspire and his expressions are very wooden.
The whole look of the film is wrong as well. It's too dark and there are times when i can't even see what is going on.
I can go on and on but I'd like to end this post visually.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7576/2376/1600/THE%20COMPARISON.png

Now tell me who looks like superman and who looks like some guy in a superman suit.
That's hilarious. where the hell is that Christopher Reeve photo from. it's obviously photoshopped. It looks like he's standing in on a street in a town where Willy Wonka lives. I sure don't remember that movie.

I really don't think you can judge an acting performance from a few minutes of a trailer either. But I think he looks great as Superman and Clark so far. I also think Routh looks a lot like a younger Reeve, and that's cool to me.

this is from the movie, and just as dark if not darker than the Routh photo.
http://www.ecranlarge.com/images/dvd/tests/superman-2-critique-3.jpg

http://adorocinema.cidadeinternet.com.br/filmes/superman-2/superman-2-03.jpg

[kmeyers]

I agree this new guy is blah. Not cuz he's small, but cuz he looks CORNY AS HELL. And nerdy, and fake, and plastic. You seen his hair? Wtf. You'd think they'd update Superman for today's day and age but no they're going backwards. Not one person I know, likes it. And no offense to anyone but I belive that 90% of the people's reaction was "wow that is gay" lmao.
Then you should check out the response to the trailers on the TV/Film board here. There are plenty of positive responses.

And as for Cristopher Reeve's being born to play Superman...wow. Hell NO.

People just say that cuz it feels right after all these years and cuz he's dead and an icon and blah blah. Truth is those movies were corny too, and he was NOTHING like what I pictured superman, and he didn't really even look like clark kent to me.
No, people liked Reeve as Superman because he was believable, and made us believe that a man could fly. he's not an icon because he's dead...if he was, then who wouldn't be an icon?

As far as Tom Welling, he is bigger built then this guy now and alot more belivable as both superman and as clark. He has an everyman quality and I can belive he's from this day and age and can belive he's just a normal dude when he's clark and can belive he's a hero when he's flyiing around.
everyman quality?? Tom Welling? Wasn't he an Abercrombie and Fitch model?

This guy..not even close.
yeah, this guy looks more like Reeve, but you don't like him, so I guess I can understand your dislike.


Being big doesn't mean anything. It has to be belivable, and clark kent isnt a body builder. He doesnt get his powers from his big muscles but from the sun and blah blah so his size is irrelevant.


and the girl that plays lois = blah

wooden and not beliveable too
I'm glad you can evaluate an entire acting performance based on a few lines.

[shyguy]

This really seems a bit silly to me. Everyone seems to be jumping to conclusions based solely on a few minutes of footage from the new movie and nostalgia for a movie from the 70's.

Even if Routh is smaller than Reeve, it's not to any degree that it's a big deal, and I don't see the point of an especially buff Superman, anyway.

[im399unot]

Go watch the new Trailer, where a bullet bounces off Superman's eyeball, and THEN tell me he's a wimp with a straight face.

Build doesn't make Superman. Good special effects do.

In fact, the fact that Superman doesn't look more atlhetic then the guy next door only makes his superpowered feats more incredible..

To quote Fred Perry: "In comics, Power is determined and percieved by the reaction of the object, not the force behind it."


I saw that trailer and it just really made the movie look like crap.

[kmeyers]

I saw that trailer and it just really made the movie look like crap.
Well, that's a fantastically thorough criticism.

care to elaborate?

[Choppa]

At the end of the day this isn't really a sequal. Because Superman 2 happens in when was it 1980 or there abouts? So if this is a direct sequal to that then it's 26 years later. And nobody has aged. In fact some have got younger. And you can't say well actually Brian is saying that Superman 2 is only five years ago beacuse it just isn't. Everone would have mobile phones, fashoines would be different, cars, phoneboxes, everything almost. So it's the oddest sequal ever.

Superman ages? Singer has said that it's a sequel. This movie even has bits of the first one in it. Not every sequel follows the previous films continuity 100% (look at Schumacher's Batman movies).

If it was to be a direct sequal to Superman 2, then going by your mantra he should have cast all the living actors from that movie into this, Hackmen etc... and had a fifty odd year old Superman, who may or may not have physically aged.

He should? Hawkman was in a previous film? When did I say this was a direct sequel? Do you know what a sequel even is?

Singer is asking us to reimagine Superman 2 as a movie set in 2001 or there abouts. Very stupid.

Why he didn't just start again instead of letting his love for the old franchise interfeer lacks professionalism and credibilty. However he is a wonderful film maker and I reckon it will be an enjoyable film.

How should I know. Write him a letter or something. Or imagine it's the year 2006 and email him.

[Hellcow]

Ok guys, it's very simple. If you are a serious guy and you know what is good creatively and you respect the real quality of comic books, you will realise that superman returns is rubbish.
Having Superman, the most positive and goody-two-shoes hero, have a cape with the colour of blood and a dark costume is astonishing. With an 's' on the belt and boots that look like something you could buy in a shop is very weird.
From all the trailers i have seen, Brandon Routh cannot act. He does not inspire and his expressions are very wooden.
The whole look of the film is wrong as well. It's too dark and there are times when i can't even see what is going on.
I can go on and on but I'd like to end this post visually.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7576/2376/1600/THE%20COMPARISON.png

Now tell me who looks like superman and who looks like some guy in a superman suit.

Niether. Both look like some nerd fanboy in a super suit.

[Kara Zor El]

Superman ages? Singer has said that it's a sequel. This movie even has bits of the first one in it. Not every sequel follows the previous films continuity 100% (look at Schumacher's Batman movies).

I don't consider Batman Forever and Batman and Robin to be true sequals to the Burton Films. They were only sequals because the producers said they were but they weren't. They reimagined the whole thing and kept a couple of actors in. And I'd really not like to look at those movies thanks they knock me sick.


He should? Hawkman was in a previous film? When did I say this was a direct sequel? Do you know what a sequel even is?.

Yes I know what a sequal is but can you read. Beacuse I wrote Hackman not Hawkman. But I guess all that acid streaming from your mouth was steeming too and got in your eyes.


How should I know. Write him a letter or something. Or imagine it's the year 2006 and email him.

Is that the best you can think of to say? That's your debating skill? If it's your time of the month try some chocolate it sure helps me.

[Kara Zor El]

The radio show.

Fleischer.

Alyn.

Reeves.

Reeve.

Super Friends.

Superboy.

S: TAS.

Smallville

Lois & Clark.

Recapped on JLU.

The origin's been done many, MANY times before on film, and at least once on radio.
.

Hang on when I say film, I meen movie. Where I come from I mean Movie when I say Film. And his origin has only been done once in a movie. And I did say that it shouldn't be done again except in a very fast Fleischer Cartoon type of way. Or like at the begining of the Six Million Dollar Man. Less than a minute sort of thing. So you're being very picky and wrong in picking that out, when alls I was saying that even though its only been done once on Film/Movie I don't think they need or should do it again, except perhaps in the way which I have mentioned and apparently are doing.

You also have to remember that it's for kids and believe it or not there are a lot of kids who don't know Superman's origin at all. That's why I suggest the quick opener explanation, which is very fitting with comic books and Superman in particular.

[Agentum]

I think they would have been best of doing this from the begining like with the new Batman movie.

The older Superman movies is to old to mean much to most of peoples.

[Catman]

For years, people were saying "why don't they just pretend the crappy ones didn't happen, and make a good follow-up to the good ones?" Singer does that, and still people bitch!

You mean there was an overwhelming majority of people who wanted a sequel to the Donner and Lester films rather than a completely original film that would restart/revamp the franchise? :confused:

Between the last Superman cartoon, Smallville, the next cartoon, whatever they do in the Legion cartoon, Lois & Clark, Superboy, the short-lived Supermancartoon from the 80's, I thin the origin is pretty well covered! There are some really interesting things in the Donner Krypton, that would be fun to explore - which is what Singer's doing.

Well I personally think that there are still quite a few kids who havent seen Superman's origin in the last Superman cartoon, Smallville, whatever they do in the Legion cartoon, Lois & Clark, Superboy, the short-lived Supermancartoon from the 80's. Although Smallville may be the exception.

Basically, I believe audiences like origin stories to a certain degree, and even if people are familiar with Superman's origin (like Batman), I think a Superman Begins like scenario would have ultimately been much more pleasing than a film that is essentially a sequel to a 20-something year old movie. IMHO, using the Donner mythology signals a lack of orginality on Singer's part, and although I sincerely hope this film turns out surprisingly good, I however wont be foolish enough to believe that Singer, or any director for that matter, is infallible with any given movie that he or she is hired to take on.

[Kara Zor El]

Superman ages?

Missed this one. In the comics he doesn't age but the time period moves on, this works in comics but not in film. More so because it's such an ongoing thing. It's like not noticing yourself put weight on or whatever. But with a movie it's different. If it's a sequal to something 20-odd years ago then in the realism of live action people should age. I don't want him to age Superman. because I want him to be young. So therefor I want a new origional continuity. You can't reheat an old Soufflé!

[NightMage]

Thats a valid point.

I especially love in keeping in context with the film, that right at the end of Superman 2, we see Superman say something to the president about sorry for being away for so long, and I wont let you down again.

Then up and leaves for 5-6 years.

What?

That and Lois having kids, are two reasons why I won't pay to see this crap. Routh is fine, you just can't top Christopher Reeve, but those two things...the hell with that I'll use my money to see "X3: The Last Stand." No high expectations, but the movie's still solid.

[King Krypton]

I think they would have been best of doing this from the begining like with the new Batman movie.

The older Superman movies is to old to mean much to most of peoples.

Too bad most fans' idea of "doing this from the beginning" is going back to the JJ Abrams/Jon Peters/McG script where Krypton didn't explode, Luthor was Kryptonian, the suit was alive, and Superman is Neo in a red cape. I'm dead serious. I have seen constant demands for the revival of that project in the wake of the movie we're now getting, arguing that Abrams/Peters/McG created a "wise 21st century reboot" that would have "reinvigorated" Superman.

No thanks. I don't trust the fans to decide what would make for a good origin film. Especially when there's no reason at all to do the origin again when everybody already knows it. And butchering the origin isn't the answer, either. Just do a movie about an established Superman and be done with it.

[LibrarianThorne]

ok yeh, my other points may be debated. But, can anyone please tell me if he can actually act?

You know who else was a complete unknown and Superman was his first movie?

Christopher Reeve.

Routh looks the part, and what few lines I've heard so far I've liked. He looks like he 'gets' Clark Kent pretty well, and the savior line he says as Superman is fantastic. We'll see what happens on June 30th.

[BlueOrange25]

Too bad most fans' idea of "doing this from the beginning" is going back to the JJ Abrams/Jon Peters/McG script where Krypton didn't explode, Luthor was Kryptonian, the suit was alive, and Superman is Neo in a red cape. I'm dead serious. I have seen constant demands for the revival of that project in the wake of the movie we're now getting, arguing that Abrams/Peters/McG created a "wise 21st century reboot" that would have "reinvigorated" Superman.

No thanks. I don't trust the fans to decide what would make for a good origin film. Especially when there's no reason at all to do the origin again when everybody already knows it. And butchering the origin isn't the answer, either. Just do a movie about an established Superman and be done with it.

Makes sense to me.

I'm going to give the movie a chance. I didn't like Routh as Superman or the costume at all, nor did I like the fact that Clark/Superman and Lois were so young. But I've made my peace with it. I don't care that Routh isn't all that built, Reeve wasn't either. Even if Routh and Bosworth are a tad young, that's not going to prevent my suspension of disbelief. As for the costume, well any skintight costume design that has underwear on the outside is bound to take some getting used to. This is regardless of the colours or proportions of the design.

The fact that Singer is using the first two films as a rough history is fine by me. Since the original did the origin so well I prefer what Singer is doing now.

So what if the trailer isn't awe inspiring. I don't pay money to see trailers. As for Routh's acting ability, let's wait until the film comes out. Then we'll see what he's like in character, and then we can take our shots.

I'm ready for a new Superman film, and I'm hoping it's going to be good.

[xnef1025]

I don't get the whole "Routh is too young" debate. The guy is 26 years old. He's playing a 30 year old Kent/Supes. Not a big stretch. Hell, I'm almost 29 and I still get carded buying beer at the grocery store. Thirty years isn't too young for Superman. Figure it's 5 years after the end of the first movie and he was 25 then. The Planet was his first major job. Makes sense.

Bosworth is a bit more of a stretch since she is only 23, but if we put Lois about 2 or 3 years younger than Clark, we can just assume she was an investigative prodigy right out of college. Makes sense for her character and puts Lois at about 27/28 in Superman Returns, plenty old enough to have a 4 or 5 year old kid.

Seems like the problem everyone is having is due to seeing late 20-early 30 year olds playing teens in the movies and TV. It's warped our ability to place people's ages.

[ancientages]

Yeh, i don't want to keep on bashing this film cuz i've done enough of that. But what do u guys think? would jim caviezel have made a good superman? I think he would have you know. Something for this day and age.

[Mike Smith]

Seems like the problem everyone is having is due to seeing late 20-early 30 year olds playing teens in the movies and TV. It's warped our ability to place people's ages.

That's a good point. Smallville Clark, Tom Welling, is either 29 or 30.

[Choppa]

I don't consider Batman Forever and Batman and Robin to be true sequals to the Burton Films. They were only sequals because the producers said they were but they weren't. They reimagined the whole thing and kept a couple of actors in. And I'd really not like to look at those movies thanks they knock me sick.

Yes I know what a sequal is but can you read. Beacuse I wrote Hackman not Hawkman. But I guess all that acid streaming from your mouth was steeming too and got in your eyes.

Is that the best you can think of to say? That's your debating skill? If it's your time of the month try some chocolate it sure helps me.

You can consider Schumacher's films to be whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact that they are intended to be sequels to Burton's films. A sequel by defenition is a story that continues the story of another one. This movie does that, therefore it's a sequel because it expands on information already protrayed in the previous films. A direct sequel would take place directly after the previous installment and would be more appropriate of such scrutiny. If it bothers you so much to see this kid as Superman then just don't see the movie.

[Legato]

If it bothers you so much to see this kid as Superman then just don't see the movie.

Thats a pretty simple solution. Sure beats the b*tching option.

[En Sabah Nur...]

Ok guys, it's very simple. If you are a serious guy and you know what is good creatively and you respect the real quality of comic books, you will realise that superman returns is rubbish.
Having Superman, the most positive and goody-two-shoes hero, have a cape with the colour of blood and a dark costume is astonishing. With an 's' on the belt and boots that look like something you could buy in a shop is very weird.
From all the trailers i have seen, Brandon Routh cannot act. He does not inspire and his expressions are very wooden.
The whole look of the film is wrong as well. It's too dark and there are times when i can't even see what is going on.
I can go on and on but I'd like to end this post visually.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7576/2376/1600/THE%20COMPARISON.png

Now tell me who looks like superman and who looks like some guy in a superman suit.


What kind of a nerd do you have to be to be "astonished" cuz the color of his cape is a darker red LMFAO

[En Sabah Nur...]

Maybe some shallow people feel that way but not this person. I couldn't give a drok about Christopher Reeve the real person. For me he has the perfect face for Superman and a lot of other people think that way too. and he most definately was born to play that role. You have to remember all the other actors and boxers that the producers wanted for the role. You have to remember the fact that Reeve came into the picture very late on. The whole film's success rested on the audiance's belief in a man being able to fly.
He was an unknown and the film genre was also unknown. It was a huge risk casting Reeve but he pulled it off and the audiances loved his portrayal of the icon.

This time round we've had a lot of big budget comic book movies. It's all been leading up to Superman Returns. So the weight of the role is'nt anyhting like as heavy. Sure comic book fans may well rip him up but a general movie going audiance will probably accept him at face value and enjoy the movie because of the effects and action.

And I didn't. That movie was corny, sorry.


And yes I am saying I'd rather see Tom Welling as Superman then Cristopher Reeves, FOR THIS DAY AND AGE. F*** Reeves. And this Ruth guy isn't THAT bad but I find him wooden and blah from what i seen SO FAR. Doesn't mean the movie will suck, I just don't like HIM that much.

And wtf @ Tom welling being a model...And?

So cuz he's modeled he can't be belivable as a guy walking down the street? Lmfao

[malephoenix]

Maybe it made more sense in context, but I hope we don't continue to curse others in this thread - especially dead others. Please - this isn't an attack on one poster; I'm asking everyone to have fun being the nerds we are, and not degrade someone that much so glibly. Just a request. Thanks for at least reading.

[theflyingfrogunderdog]

I think they would have been best of doing this from the begining like with the new Batman movie.

I think it's good that Hollywood didn't because when Superman Returns is bashed by the critics and fans, they'll be able to start over in afew years with a new Superman movie and go back to the colorful red and blue costume that goes with the American symbolism of the Superman mythos.

[kmeyers]

And I didn't. That movie was corny, sorry.
Superman IS corny. He's the ultimate boyscout with the powers of a god and he still pretends to be a nerd.


And yes I am saying I'd rather see Tom Welling as Superman then Cristopher Reeves, FOR THIS DAY AND AGE. Fuck Reeves. And this Ruth guy isn't THAT bad but I find him wooden and blah from what i seen SO FAR. Doesn't mean the movie will suck, I just don't like HIM that much.
First of all Welling won't play Superman, and i'm glad about that.
Fuck Reeve? Have a little respect. Why do you even like the character of Superman at all? Just curious.

And wtf @ Tom welling being a model...And?

So cuz he's modeled he can't be belivable as a guy walking down the street? Lmfao
Well, usually models are not associated with "everyman" looks. Tom Hanks has an "everyman" quality. Tom Welling, does not.

[Horror Business]

He got the role because Brian Singer is gay, and he wanted a homosexual in the role of Superman, to give gay kids a role model, since Superman lives a double life just as homos do.

This is no joke


whoa not funny alert! not funny alert!! :eek:

[Bishop_Proudstar]

Ok guys, it's very simple. If you are a serious guy and you know what is good creatively and you respect the real quality of comic books, you will realise that superman returns is rubbish.
Having Superman, the most positive and goody-two-shoes hero, have a cape with the colour of blood and a dark costume is astonishing. With an 's' on the belt and boots that look like something you could buy in a shop is very weird.
From all the trailers i have seen, Brandon Routh cannot act. He does not inspire and his expressions are very wooden.
The whole look of the film is wrong as well. It's too dark and there are times when i can't even see what is going on.
I can go on and on but I'd like to end this post visually.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7576/2376/1600/THE%20COMPARISON.png

Now tell me who looks like superman and who looks like some guy in a superman suit.

Routh looks like that "Smoked Superman" evil version from the third film. The emblem should be brighter, and bigger..

Singer's colors are 90's Super Hero gothic darker versions.. That's why "X3" was such a brighter film.

[Ontir]

I never liked Reeve's costumes in the films. Routh also has a better body now, than Reeve had in his prime. In general, I'm happier with the Routh costume. The colours are better, he doesn't look like he's wearing a junk-food wrapper!

[En Sabah Nur...]

Superman IS corny. He's the ultimate boyscout with the powers of a god and he still pretends to be a nerd.



First of all Welling won't play Superman, and i'm glad about that.
Fuck Reeve? Have a little respect. Why do you even like the character of Superman at all? Just curious.


Well, usually models are not associated with "everyman" looks. Tom Hanks has an "everyman" quality. Tom Welling, does not.


Maybe, maybe, but as "corny" as superman is himself, that movie is corny itself. I've never thought the same of Superman in comics. YES he is nice and polite but that doesn't = corny. Cristopher Reeves in general has a cheesy, boring presence in that movie that just isn't realistic. That movie feels like, the characters KNOW it's a movie. It's like Lois & Clark almost. Horrible. I don't HATE the movie, but I do get annoyed when people praise him like some God. Even in THE FIRST Superman comics, I you've ever read them he is WAY meaner. He destroyes whole neighborhoods on a whim. He beats opponents with no mercy. Now he has a no kill policy but it's still "wow he's cool don't fuck with that guy". All Reeves potrays is "i'm here to sell cookies and walk old ladies across the street". We obviosly know most things from the 60's and 70's are corny by todays standards, I don't know why people are even debating this.


I Like Superman, and I always have. Doesn't mean I have to like anyone who plays him in a movie.


And I don't know if you're surrounded by ugly people, but Tom Welling looks an avarege dude to me. You people make him sound like he's Fabio walking down the street. CMON. He's belivable as a farm boy, and he's belivable as Supes. It just feels natural. But that doesn't mean he is best for the movie either. But I'd rather have him then Ruth.

[Ontir]

Welling is no Fabio, and for that, he should thank God!

Welling looks more like Reeve than Routh does, which I think had something to do with him being cast. IRRC, he was the last one cast for the pilot (Annette O-Toole was re-cast after), and I think it's because they were looking for someone who could believably a young Reeve.

I think the movie looks great, and I can't wait to see it. I'm trying to see if I can wrangle a ticket to the premier, but my sources aren't sure if it's possible. If I can get one, I'll be there with the proverbial bells on!

[Bishop_Proudstar]

I never liked Reeve's costumes in the films. Routh also has a better body now, than Reeve had in his prime. In general, I'm happier with the Routh costume. The colours are better, he doesn't look like he's wearing a junk-food wrapper!

Reeve's costume was too bright

Routh's is a bit too dark from the views I've seen..

I'm sure it will look a bit better in the film..

[Legato]

Geez this thread is turning into one of those Superhero Hype type of threads. I say this because from the comments Im reading now this is what I would expect from that forum but not here. Not pointing any fingures but this has to be said.

Welling said so himself that he dont want to play the role of a cape and tights wearing Superman. Why is everyone beating a dead horse about him playing Superman.

He doesn't want to wear the Superman costume, which is odd since he is playing Clark Kent anyways, so why cant most people respect that.

[Ontir]

Reeves costume was too bright

Routh's is a bit too dark from the views I've seen..

I'm sure it will look a bit better in the film..

I like the darker colours, more like the earliest version and the Fleischer cartoons, on which Singer drew from, quite a bit!

[Bishop_Proudstar]

Reeves costume was too bright

Routh's is a bit too dark from the views I've seen..

I'm sure it will look a bit better in the film..

I guess so...

[Legato]

Reeves costume was too bright

Routh's is a bit too dark from the views I've seen..

I'm sure it will look a bit better in the film..

Dark look is not too bad if it's not too dark like the one in Superman 3. If the costume were any brighter it would look cartoony.

[kmeyers]

Maybe, maybe, but as "corny" as superman is himself, that movie is corny itself. I've never thought the same of Superman in comics. YES he is nice and polite but that doesn't = corny. Cristopher Reeves in general has a cheesy, boring presence in that movie that just isn't realistic. That movie feels like, the characters KNOW it's a movie. It's like Lois & Clark almost. Horrible. I don't HATE the movie, but I do get annoyed when people praise him like some God. Even in THE FIRST Superman comics, I you've ever read them he is WAY meaner. He destroyes whole neighborhoods on a whim. He beats opponents with no mercy. Now he has a no kill policy but it's still "wow he's cool don't fuck with that guy". All Reeves potrays is "i'm here to sell cookies and walk old ladies across the street". We obviosly know most things from the 60's and 70's are corny by todays standards, I don't know why people are even debating this.


I Like Superman, and I always have. Doesn't mean I have to like anyone who plays him in a movie.


And I don't know if you're surrounded by ugly people, but Tom Welling looks an avarege dude to me.
Do you live in Los Angeles?

You people make him sound like he's Fabio walking down the street. CMON. He's belivable as a farm boy, and he's belivable as Supes. It just feels natural. But that doesn't mean he is best for the movie either. But I'd rather have him then Ruth.

I really don't know what to say to this, except that you are entitled to your opinion. Bottom line is...it's done, as natural as it may feel, Welling is not Superman.

But it's Reeve without the s, and Routh.

[Ontir]

I live in LA, @ the @$$-end of Hollywood, between Hancock Park, Little Guatemala, and Korea Town.

[kmeyers]

I live in LA, @ the @$$-end of Hollywood, between Hancock Park, Little Guatemala, and Korea Town.
I used to live in Silverlake.

But that's really not the point. The average dude looks more like Tom Hanks than Tom welling, unless you live in LA.

and I actually think Routh looks way more like Reeve than Welling does.

[Ontir]

Still in LA, or didja escape?!?:p

My first day in LA, I got stuck in Silverlake at sunset. I drove around and around for almost two hours before I got away from the lake itself. It should be noted, that in a previous incarnation, I was the navigator for the Donner Party!

[theflyingfrogunderdog]

I think superman should be at least 6 foot 3 and 250lbs like the cartoon version or close to it. The man is big, not a bean pole like Routh.

I agree, small arms do not make a "man of steel."

[Ontir]

Well, he's got the height. Why does he have to be that heavy? Nothing Superman does is about muscle, anyway. It wouldn't matter if he had muscles the size of Cleveland, he still couldn't lift a skyscraper!

[Catman]

You can consider Schumacher's films to be whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact that they are intended to be sequels to Burton's films. A sequel by defenition is a story that continues the story of another one.

One thing about that is that you cant really deny that the Gotham we see in Batman Forever is vastly different from the one we saw in Burton's Batman and even Batman Returns. If a sequel by definition is a story that continues the story of another one, then please enlighten me about exactly what was continued/expanded upon from Batman Returns in Batman Forever?

Because from what I remember, it's very little. If anything at all!

In alot of ways, Schumacher's Bat-films are in a universe of their own. They are dramatically different, as well as lighter than the previous efforts Burton brought us. And if there is infact a connection between those films, it was left very much vague from the viewers perspective. Of course WB never stated that Batman Forever was a revamp of sorts, because they thought Burton's films, ESPECIALLY Batman Returns was just a little too dark for their (as well as the marketing) tastes, but you just know thats exactly why they (WB), basically, booted Burton in favor for Schumacher.

[Ontir]

When Schumacher was first interviewed about Batman Forever (I always HATED that title!), he said that we'd only seen one side of Gotham, and now we were going to see the brighter side. I knew then, that we and the film series were in BIG trouble! If Gotham had a bright side, it'd be home to Flash, or GL, Superman, or somebody! It's bloody dark, that's the point!!!

[Choppa]

One thing about that is that you cant really deny that the Gotham we see in Batman Forever is vastly different from the one we saw in Burton's Batman and even Batman Returns. If a sequel by definition is a story that continues the story of another one, then please enlighten me about exactly what was continued/expanded upon from Batman Returns in Batman Forever?

Because from what I remember, it's very little. If anything at all!

In alot of ways, Schumacher's Bat-films are in a universe of their own. They are dramatically different, as well as lighter than the previous efforts Burton brought us. And if there is infact a connection between those films, it was left very much vague from the viewers perspective. Of course WB never stated that Batman Forever was a revamp of sorts, because they thought Burton's films, ESPECIALLY Batman Returns was just a little too dark for their (as well as the marketing) tastes, but you just know thats exactly why they (WB), basically, booted Burton in favor for Schumacher.

It tells the continued stories of Batman based on what had been previously established in the prior films. Yes it looks like it's in a totaly different world and there aren't many references to previous events (I counted two), but that's just because it's not a very good film, not because it's not a sequel.

[Ontir]

I've never heard that Burton was booted, rather he was wanted and decided to move along, after Michael Keaton decided not to come back. That combination derailed the talks to get Robin Williams to play the Riddler, and of course, completely threw Billy Dee Williams, who'd played Harvey Dent in the first film, out as Two-Face.

For those who've not seen "Returns," it also introduces Robin to the series, played by Chris O'Donnell, as opposed to Marlon Wayans who'd been reported cast in the roll for the first film, but dropped by Burton at the last minute.

[Mike Smith]

... I don't HATE the movie, but I do get annoyed when people praise him like some God. Even in THE FIRST Superman comics, I you've ever read them he is WAY meaner. He destroyes whole neighborhoods on a whim. He beats opponents with no mercy. Now he has a no kill policy but it's still "wow he's cool don't fuck with that guy". All Reeves potrays is "i'm here to sell cookies and walk old ladies across the street". We obviosly know most things from the 60's and 70's are corny by todays standards, I don't know why people are even debating this...

Jon Peters is that you!?! ;)

Really, I understand what you're saying about the earlier Superman films. The characters had a different, almost lighthearted, feel. This I think is due to the time period the film was released. Aimed at a different market and the characters were perfect for it. Especially Reeves who to date I feel has the strongest most visible depiction of Superman to the general population.

By no coincidence is Hollywood investing over $125 million on a film and putting trust in an actor who can look similar to Reeves and pull of the dorky "cheesy" Clark that everyone identifies as THE character. Thankfully they didn't go down the completely dark path of Superman as some wanted to do. When you have Superman chucking cars, running villains on phone wires, and leaving female criminals bound while you strongarm the mayors guards...you kinda lose focus of where Superman has gone the last 70 years.

I think the adaption should be good, HOPEFULLY, and look forward to seeing if the continuation of the older series holds out.

[Simon Garth]

He got the role because Brian Singer is gay, and he wanted a homosexual in the role of Superman, to give gay kids a role model, since Superman lives a double life just as homos do.

This is no joke

You're right - jokes have a build up, a punchline, and with a bit of luck, an element of wit, imagination and insight.

Cretinous bigotry on the other hand, you've really got a handle on.

[Lord of Denial]

You're right - jokes have a build up, a punchline, and with a bit of luck, an element of wit, imagination and insight.

Cretinous bigotry on the other hand, you've really got a handle on.

owned!

Well said my friend! Well said! :D :D

[Kara Zor El]

You can consider Schumacher's films to be whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact that they are intended to be sequels to Burton's films. A sequel by defenition is a story that continues the story of another one. This movie does that, therefore it's a sequel because it expands on information already protrayed in the previous films. A direct sequel would take place directly after the previous installment and would be more appropriate of such scrutiny. If it bothers you so much to see this kid as Superman then just don't see the movie.

See there you go again hot shot. I haven't even once mentioned "this kid" as you call him in any of my posts.

And if Batman Forever is a sequal to Burton's ones, how come Harvey Dent is a black man in Burtons ones and a white man in the Schumacher ones? Does Superboy Prime have something to do with this?

i'd also at this point just like to say I'm really looking forward to Superman Returns. I'm really hyped up to see it. Alls I have said in my posts that I don't think it was the best idea to make it a sequal to the Donner one and have given my reasons. I also said that I think Christopher Reeve is always going to be the greatest Superman for me. I didn't say he was for you or anyone else. Just me. And I never mentioned what I thought of the new guy. My first impression was slight dissapointment because I grew up on Reeve and want that same charisma that I get from him. But I got over that quick enough and looked for the possative's. I'll reserve judgement on his portrayal until after I've seen it. Everyone has their favourite 007 or Doctor Who or Bruce Wayne or Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers or Ben Kenobi, same with Superman. Nothing to get all hot under the collar about.
And to acknowledge and give a reaction to the title of this thread - I don't think he looks like a wimp.

[Gernot]

I don't think Brandon Routh looks like a wimp at all! In fact, the more previews for the new movie I see, the more I look forward to it!

I know the trolls won't like to hear this, but come opening weekend, most of America's gonna be VERY happy! :D

[Legato]

I don't think Brandon Routh looks like a wimp at all! In fact, the more previews for the new movie I see, the more I look forward to it!

I know the trolls won't like to hear this, but come opening weekend, most of America's gonna be VERY happy! :D

Plus if you think X-3 did an impressive showing on it's opening weekend just imagine how much money Superman Returns will make.

[Ontir]

He got the role because Brian Singer is gay, and he wanted a homosexual in the role of Superman, to give gay kids a role model, since Superman lives a double life just as homos do. ~ SemiNerd

A stunning assessment! First off, as a homo, I don't live a double-life, and those who do, continue in that vein because of attitudes like your own. Second, what makes you think Brandon Routh is gay? Singer is, yes. He's quite open about that, but I've never heard anything about Routh, beyond some daft rumour that Singer was going to cast a gay guy as some sort of political stunt. If he did that, it would probably be THE single most stupid move of his career. You don't, on the eve of releasing a long-awaited film, that is also one of the most signifigant properties the studio owns, do something that could negatively affect the film, as such a revelation could cause, with a person like yourself. Not if you want to continue making films with $100 million + budgets!

I think you're correct, Legato. Superman Returns will open well, and have people going back to see it again.

[kmeyers]

I can't wait. Superman is going to be cool again.

[Catman]

It tells the continued stories of Batman based on what had been previously established in the prior films. Yes it looks like it's in a totaly different world and there aren't many references to previous events (I counted two), but that's just because it's not a very good film, not because it's not a sequel.

I will agree with you there that Batman Forever isnt really a great film, but what I dont agree with you with is the idea that it's a sequel that plays off of what has been established in the previous installments, because to be quite honest, whatever that was expanded upon from the Burton films was basically extremely minimal. I can understand that WB did not want to totally disassociate themselves from the Burton films, because let's face it, they were big box office hits for them, but in alot of ways, Batman Forever was a reboot of sorts to a franchise that the WB felt went a little too "dark" for their taste with Batman Returns and needed new blood to reinvigorate it again. And to his credit, Schumacher achieved this to a certain degree. But I believe credit should also go to Jim Carrey who at the time, was dishing out hit after hit for whatever studio he was working for.

I've never heard that Burton was booted, rather he was wanted and decided to move along, after Michael Keaton decided not to come back. That combination derailed the talks to get Robin Williams to play the Riddler, and of course, completely threw Billy Dee Williams, who'd played Harvey Dent in the first film, out as Two-Face.

I've heard, and read different reports. Actually on the Batman Returns: SE dvd, Burton recalls that he was actually toying with the idea of doing a third Batman film, but WB was really lukewarm on the idea and basically asked him if a "smaller" film would be more to his liking. Burton himself realized that WB really did not want him to direct a sequel, and of course WB execs didnt want to say this, but from what I gather, Burton decided to leave it at that and ultimately decided to not go on with a third film that would have completed his trilogy. But to WB's credit, they did let Burton down easily.

For those who've not seen "Returns," it also introduces Robin to the series, played by Chris O'Donnell, as opposed to Marlon Wayans who'd been reported cast in the roll for the first film, but dropped by Burton at the last minute.

Just nitpicking here, but it was Forever that introduced Robin into the Batman film Universe. ;) :D
Marlon Wayans was all set for Batman Returns to play Robin a few years earlier, but Burton, at the last minute, decided not to include Robin yet again which left Marlon out.
I've read that in Sam Hamm's original script that Robin was supposed to basically be a street kid that rescues Vicki Vale from The Penguins goons in an alley, but I have no idea exactly how Robin was originally concieved to appear in Burton's film. Considering that Sam Hamm's script was largely ignored.

[Choppa]

See there you go again hot shot. I haven't even once mentioned "this kid" as you call him in any of my posts.

Yeah you're right my bad, I got you mixed up with the original poster.


And if Batman Forever is a sequal to Burton's ones, how come Harvey Dent is a black man in Burtons ones and a white man in the Schumacher ones? Does Superboy Prime have something to do with this?


I believe that Harvey was put into Batman as a character to be used down the line if Two-Face was ever introduced in a sequel. When the character was used in Forever, WB went with a bigger actor. I don't know why Williams was cast as him originally.



I will agree with you there that Batman Forever isnt really a great film, but what I dont agree with you with is the idea that it's a sequel that plays off of what has been established in the previous installments, because to be quite honest, whatever that was expanded upon from the Burton films was basically extremely minimal.

I didn't say that it played off what had been established, I said that it continues the established story, which it did. It didn't change anything that previously happened, like who Batman is or what happened the night his parents were killed. Like I said before, the fact that little was expanded on is cause Schumacher chose not to do that and it doesn't mean that it isn't a sequel just because of that decision.

[Catman]

I didn't say that it played off what had been established, I said that it continues the established story, which it did. It didn't change anything that previously happened, like who Batman is or what happened the night his parents were killed. Like I said before, the fact that little was expanded on is cause Schumacher chose not to do that and it doesn't mean that it isn't a sequel just because of that decision.

You mentioned that a sequel by definition continues the established story, so by that I am asking exactly what was continued from Batman Returns? If the answer is who Batman is, and what happened the night his parents were killed, then I have to say again, that continuation is extremely minimal. After checking out the Batman Forever: SE from the uber-cool Batman Anthology DVD set, Schumacher attempted to tell a origin story of his own. Which is why we see Bruce flashback to the night his parents were killed, his fall into the cave, and his first encounter with the bat that would influence his decision on becoming Batman. With that being said, Schumacher's BF is a film that gives a slight nod to the previous films (like I said, WB was smart enough not to completely disassociate themselves from the Burton films) , but also attempts, in alot of ways, to take the franchise in another completely new, and at the time, fresh direction. Anything that was continued from the Burton films was left very much vague from a casual fan (the general audience) perspective. And though I will admit that I would like to think of BF as a sequel as well, I have to say that the more I think about it, the more I believe that BF was clearly a somewhat successful attempt on WB's part to have it's cake (a revamp and a origin story) and eat it too (associated with the previous films).

But whatever success that was found with BF was pretty much blown to hell with the horror that was Batman & Robin.

[kmeyers]

You are seriously arguing about this?

It's like screaming at each other because one says it's blue and the other yells you're so wrong, it's cyan.

[van-zee]

Bosworth is a bit more of a stretch since she is only 23, but if we put Lois about 2 or 3 years younger than Clark, we can just assume she was an investigative prodigy right out of college. Makes sense for her character and puts Lois at about 27/28 in Superman Returns, plenty old enough to have a 4 or 5 year old kid.

In the comics Lois was 16 when she got her job at the planet.

[Catman]

You are seriously arguing about this?

It's like screaming at each other because one says it's blue and the other yells you're so wrong, it's cyan.

I was, and am still under the assumption that we were having a discussion. Not an argument. We have both discussed this like gentlemen, and I believe we have both brought up valid points without having to resort to cheap shots at one another. :)

[Gernot]

I can't wait. Superman is going to be cool again.

When, if ever, did Superman STOP being cool?

IMHO, he never HAS stopped! :)

[Kara Zor El]

Yeah you're right my bad, I got you mixed up with the original poster.
Fair enough. :) ;)

[Bishop_Proudstar]

Plus if you think X-3 did an impressive showing on it's opening weekend just imagine how much money Superman Returns will make.

Yes, it will make even more on its 1st weekend..

X-Men set the table for Superman to feast.

I don't see it continuing to rake in as much dough, and live people's hearts and minds like "The X-Men".

Teams.
Colorful and interesting villains
Big battles with multiple characters
Diversity
DVD sales is where X-3 may do much better..
(For starters, I expect the X-trilogy to be in one package with extra scenes, and a book.)

Singer may have a secret for this film...(like Phoenix in X-2) I think he has several "secrets". One is just screaming at me after I watched the last trailer..

Hopefully, Luthor dons the green kryptonian armor..

[Choppa]

You mentioned that a sequel by definition continues the established story, so by that I am asking exactly what was continued from Batman Returns? If the answer is who Batman is, and what happened the night his parents were killed, then I have to say again, that continuation is extremely minimal. After checking out the Batman Forever: SE from the uber-cool Batman Anthology DVD set, Schumacher attempted to tell a origin story of his own. Which is why we see Bruce flashback to the night his parents were killed, his fall into the cave, and his first encounter with the bat that would influence his decision on becoming Batman. With that being said, Schumacher's BF is a film that gives a slight nod to the previous films (like I said, WB was smart enough not to completely disassociate themselves from the Burton films) , but also attempts, in alot of ways, to take the franchise in another completely new, and at the time, fresh direction. Anything that was continued from the Burton films was left very much vague from a casual fan (the general audience) perspective. And though I will admit that I would like to think of BF as a sequel as well, I have to say that the more I think about it, the more I believe that BF was clearly a somewhat successful attempt on WB's part to have it's cake (a revamp and a origin story) and eat it too (associated with the previous films).

But whatever success that was found with BF was pretty much blown to hell with the horror that was Batman & Robin.

What is continued from the previous movies is exactly the basics that you mentioned. Yes BF added new stuff, but it didn't contradict anything that happened before. The fact that it didn't play off the previous stuff is just because it's not a very good movie like I said before.

[Ontir]

The second through fourth "Batman" films were all part of the continuity of the first, which is why they were sequels. "Batman Begins[/B] is a new direction, which will go in whatever direction the director/producers decide it will go in, unbeholden to those four films.

[Lord of Denial]

Yes, it will make even more on its 1st weekend..

X-Men set the table for Superman to feast.

I don't see it continuing to rake in as much dough, and live people's hearts and minds like "The X-Men".

Teams.
Colorful and interesting villains
Big battles with multiple characters
Diversity
DVD sales is where X-3 may do much better..
(For starters, I expect the X-trilogy to be in one package with extra scenes, and a book.)

Singer may have a secret for this film...(like Phoenix in X-2) I think he has several "secrets". One is just screaming at me after I watched the last trailer..

Hopefully, Luthor dons the green kryptonian armor..


I disagree. I think Superman will rake in money for several weeks and outdo X-Men overall.

1. One of pop cultures biggest icons and widely know fictional characters on Earth.
2. First movie in over 20 + years
3. Introduction of character to a whole new generation
4. Wider age range of appeal. everyone from young to old knows this character
5. Bryan Singer- Alot of people missed him directing X3 and will love to see what he does here.

[Ontir]

X3 opened big, but the world of mouth is going to chop its legs, IMHO.

Superman Returns is probably the most sought after sequel since the Return of the Jedi was released! He's also the top-gun, grand-daddy of all super-hero movies, and Singer looks to be at the top of his game!

[mrpoizun]

So, have you all read the article in today's (June 2) LA Times;
"How Will a Gay Icon Fly at the Box Office?" which notes Warner's marketing in the homosexual community? How about a trading card of Superman literally coming out of the closet?

[Ontir]

I think the question is "Have YOU read the article?" It specifically talks about Warners' NOT going after the gay community, and NOT being overly thrilled with the Advocate article. I'm sure the trading card in question, shows him emerging from the traditional broom closet or something, which is a bit different than "coming out of the closet." There are a lot of vicious shrikes in Hollywood, who have agendas all their own, and will use whatever opportunity presents itself, to make mischief. In general, I think the tone of the article, the stuff on what seems to be the aptly named "defamer," (not to mention, Mrpoizun) and the tone of your initial post, suggest a problem of your own, as opposed to the film's.

Most people, are going to see a "Superman" film. For them, any gay content, is going to be a non-issue. People loved the Usual Suspects, and they loved the first two X-Films. If they don't know that Singer's gay, it won't matter. Obviously, if they did know that Singer's gay, it didn't matter to them, and ultimately, I believe it will end up being a great deal of "sound & fury, signifying nothing."

[10xPete]

Most people, are going to see a "Superman" film. For them, any gay content, is going to be a non-issue. People loved the Usual Suspects, and they loved the first two X-Films. If they don't know that Singer's gay, it won't matter. Obviously, if they did know that Singer's gay, it didn't matter to them, and ultimately, I believe it will end up being a great deal of "sound & fury, signifying nothing."

Yeah, you tell him.

[MicroZone]

The problem is that Christopher Reeves was Superman. He was born to play the role. He has Superman's face period. So anything is downhill from there. But Chris wasn't massive. He was lythe. He pumped up more as the shoot went on though.

the problem with Brandon is that he wasn't cast in the role of Superman, he was cast in the role of Chris Reeves PLAYING Superman, because Chris is still so fresh in everyone's mind after his death. going in the opposite direction, casting a man who actually looks 30-35 years old (like Superman is supposed to be here) would have been a much better choice, IMO.

[Simon Garth]

When, if ever, did Superman STOP being cool?

IMHO, he never HAS stopped! :)

IMHO, about 1961, and hasn't been cool since.

Just come back from X3 - Superman Returns will have to be a hell of a good film to top that.

[Black Atom]

X3 opened big, but the world of mouth is going to chop its legs, IMHO.

Superman Returns is probably the most sought after sequel since the Return of the Jedi was released! He's also the top-gun, grand-daddy of all super-hero movies, and Singer looks to be at the top of his game!

I don't know about that. When I saw X3, there was a more positive crowd response to the trailers for Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and, believe it or not, Snakes on a Plane than there was for Superman. And this was among a crowd of people already there to see a comicbook flick.

[Ontir]

When I saw it, the audience was largely silent throughout the film. When it ended, people just got up and walked out, not too many were staying put. I didn't know there was anything after the credits, so I just left with all the other people who were walking out saying, "That's it, huh?" and "Well, it wasn't as bad as I was expecting..."

[Preus]

Why did they get such a small guy to play superman? I understand that in Smallville the actor playing Superman is supposed to be a teenager, so he hasnt filled out yet but coudnt they get a actor that didnt look like a Abercrombie model? If they just had to use this guy couldnt they have artifically inflated him? I mean Baseball players do it why cant the actor protaraying the Man of Steel?


Routh has a pretty nice build to me & FYI, Clark on Smallville isn't a teenager anymore, he's near adulthood. Besides, Superman doesn't need to be some overly sized muscle freak.

[Simon Garth]

Superman Returns is probably the most sought after sequel since the Return of the Jedi was released! He's also the top-gun, grand-daddy of all super-hero movies, and Singer looks to be at the top of his game!

Among us comic geeks maybe. Among the 'normal' people I talk to, no-one, literally no-one is interested in Superman. Some might go with their families, but there's no buzz at all. Now that's an office of 30-45 year olds, so not prime comic book movie people, but most of them were hyped for LOTR, many for Star Wars, and a few for X-Men or Batman.

I've seen the SR trailer once, and it left me totally uninterested in seeing the film. And after the previous Superman films (which I thought were all terrible), and after the over-hyping of Batman Begins (which I thought was average at best) it's going to take a lot of convincing to get me to watch this one.

Every publicity photo I've seen, and in the trailer, the Superman character just looks stupid - that costume just doesn't work on the screen, for me.

[Ontir]

Well, I guess you live in an un-interested corner of the country. That's not been my experience. It's true, that "normal" people haven't put their lives on hold awaiting a Superman movie, but when it's mentioned - at least in my circle, there's always a fairly lively discussion, with questions like "Nicholas Cage isn't Superman, is he?"" Once informed, especially finding out that the film's by the same director fo the first two X-Films, their interest rises. Considering all the covers Routh and Bosworth, not tomention Spacey and even Singer have been on, the people putting out the magazines must think it worthwile as well. They aren't all owned by aol-Time/Warner!

I still love the first film, as wall as most of the second. The third, I knew was utter crap whilst watching it, and the fourth, well... the less said, the better, I mean - ON HIS FIFTIETH FRIGGIN' BIRTHDAY! I try not to be bitter, but...

[phantom1592]

I've seen the SR trailer once, and it left me totally uninterested in seeing the film. And after the previous Superman films (which I thought were all terrible), and after the over-hyping of Batman Begins (which I thought was average at best) it's going to take a lot of convincing to get me to watch this one.

Every publicity photo I've seen, and in the trailer, the Superman character just looks stupid - that costume just doesn't work on the screen, for me.


Hmm... Doesn't sound like this is a movie for you. If you thought Batman Begins was "average" and didn't like "any" of the old movies, then I doubt you'll like this one.



Personally when I first heard that music my heart started go into hyperdrive. Regardless of the trailer merits, just the THOUGHT of Superman on the big screen again gets me excited.

[Simon Garth]

Hmm... Doesn't sound like this is a movie for you. If you thought Batman Begins was "average" and didn't like "any" of the old movies, then I doubt you'll like this one.



Personally when I first heard that music my heart started go into hyperdrive. Regardless of the trailer merits, just the THOUGHT of Superman on the big screen again gets me excited.

Back when Superman 1 came out, I was totally amped for it - comic book characters on screen, and taken (fairly) seriously! You'll believe a man can fly! Well... you'll believe a man can slide sideways across the screen. S2 was marginally better - the plot was incredibly stupid, but at least something happened. S3 was a trainwreck. I've still not watched S4.

The big problem for me, I've belatedly realised, about all those Supes films, was that they were exactly like all those bland 60s & 70s Superman comics that I utterly loathed.

This one will hopefully have a bit more modern sensibility, but Superman? I just can't get that interested in him as a character - certainly not enough to pay £9 to watch

[King Krypton]

I think superman should be at least 6 foot 3 and 250lbs like the cartoon version or close to it. The man is big, not a bean pole like Routh.

The fan-film World's Finest did close to that, casting a 6'3", 240-pound bodybuilder as Superman. And a lot of fans thought he looked TOO big.

Be realistic here. A comic book or cartoon drawing cannot be exactly cast with a live actor. It just doesn't work.

[BlueOrange25]

Be realistic here. A comic book or cartoon drawing cannot be exactly cast with a live actor. It just doesn't work.

Exactly. I had my issues in the beginning about Routh being cast. But over time, I realised it didn't matter so much about the physique. Routh has a tall, athletic build which I think is enough. True, it would have been better if he could pack a little bit more muscle, but what's there is fine.

[Bishop_Proudstar]

When I saw it, the audience was largely silent throughout the film. When it ended, people just got up and walked out, not too many were staying put. I didn't know there was anything after the credits, so I just left with all the other people who were walking out saying, "That's it, huh?" and "Well, it wasn't as bad as I was expecting..."


I think that you may be s t r e t c h i n g the truth a bit to push your argument, and hopes for Superman..

All I can say is where I was..People in line for the next showing of "X-3" seemed very excited to see the good feelings from the exiting crowd. People had less hopes for "X3", but it delivered. This can only help Superman's opening.

Plus, I said that X-Men will warm-up the audiences for "Superman Returns", and it will make more money a a "legacy sequel" but I feel that it will not last in people's minds.

Singer has a couple of surprises that might change that though... His trailer looks like Lex is trying to destroy the rest of California (as a carbon copy of the first film) , but I think that Singer has more in store..

[Ontir]

I'm not actually. There was almost no discussion until I was almost out in the lobby, and then I heard "That's the end, huh?" and "It wasn't as bad as I expected." I felt several times while watching it, that I was seeing it, but not experiencing the film. I looked around, and people were just sort of taking it in, not on the edge of their seets, not rooting for anyone, etc.

[greenlanternslight1979]

its said that superman doest age as quickly as humans do...conunity nightmare but could be one explanation

[shyguy]

Well, I guess you live in an un-interested corner of the country. That's not been my experience. It's true, that "normal" people haven't put their lives on hold awaiting a Superman movie, but when it's mentioned - at least in my circle, there's always a fairly lively discussion, with questions like "Nicholas Cage isn't Superman, is he?""

I don't think a crowd who remembers that Nicholas Cage Superman thing can be considered a typical sample of the population. Not even a lot of the comic geeks I know are that excited for the new Superman... in fact, among people I know, I think I'm the one most excited for Superman. By comparison, virtually everyone I know (and nearly all of my friends are non-comic reading women) was extremely excited for X-Men to come out (while I didn't care about it that much).

[Ontir]

The people who asked about Cage, know about him because I told them, at which point they said, YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!. or something a bit more colourful.

in terms of aging, it's dealt with in the first movie. Kal-el's journey to Earth, by Jor-el's later statements, took thousands of years. Part of that, time was slowed down via Einsteinian theory, but then later, he leaves Smallville, and spends 12 years being trained and tutored by Jor-el. During that time, Lois Lane, the little girl who saw him race the train, has grown into a woman who appears to be the same age.

In the comic books, we've seen many examples of Superman's great longevity. Usually, he looks exactly the same, with the addition of long white hair and a beard and moustache, but in the DC 1,000,000 story, he looked exactly the same, and had been living IN the sun, with a GL Ring, which he has now.

[Preus]

You're talking about Superman Prime, right?

[Ontir]

There wasn't a Superman Prime. Just Superboy. I'm talking about the Superman of Earth 1, the Silver Age, who was shown to be incredibly long-lived, with the beard, moustache, and long white hair. DC 1,000,000 featured the Superman who lived in the sun, and wore a GL Ring, that's post-Crisis.

The middle paragraph dealt exclusively with the first Donner film.

[dancj]

I'm pretty sure that Superman is called Superman Prime in DC 1,000,000 to distinguish him from all subsequent people to use his name

Dan

[Ontir]

Oh. Ok, then.

[TROUBLEZ]

When I saw the poster of Superman Returns, I thought, "this guy doesn't look too good in a Superman costume." They should have picked a guy who you can actually believe is Superman.

[Ontir]

It can be hard to tell scale in a photo, I think that's part of the problem people are having. He's actually a big guy.

[Citizen V]

Personally..im thinking that the movie might not do so well.Christopher Reeve was a great Superman,it would take a good actor to try and take the mantle of the Movie Superman from him.

[Ontir]

The reality is that Christopher Reeve left the Superman films behind a long time ago. He wasn't going to be in Superman V when the Salkinds were still going to make it, and that was long before his accident. Further, he's no longer with us, and people are well aware of that. It's also been long enough, that there are, believe it or not, a bunch of people who don't know those films They've either not seen them, or it was long ago that they don't have much recollection of them. For others, their recollections are that the SFX weren't so hot, and with the amazing work that I've seen so far, this one should blow the audience away. They've also changed the opening day from June 30, to June 28, giving them a 7 day holiday weekend. The film's going to have one hell of a long opening weekend!

[the film freak]

Personally..im thinking that the movie might not do so well.Christopher Reeve was a great Superman,it would take a good actor to try and take the mantle of the Movie Superman from him.

It'll probably do okay. It won't do Spider-man or probably X-Men 3 numbers but I think it will do well. What's it competing with?

[WoodenDummy]

It can be hard to tell scale in a photo, I think that's part of the problem people are having. He's actually a big guy.

He is a big guy. Film and Comic are two different types of media and what works in a comic won't work or look the same on film.

[Lord of Denial]

Personally..im thinking that the movie might not do so well.Christopher Reeve was a great Superman,it would take a good actor to try and take the mantle of the Movie Superman from him.



Wil the advancement in film FX and a highly regarded director I think people will want to see Superman for a new generation. People of this generation will want to feel that Superman belongs to them and they can't feel that way without it being made by this generation. My generation and older will always think of Reeves as Superman but people that have not seen those films need a new Superman to call thiers.

[Ontir]

He is a big guy. Film and Comic are two different types of media and what works in a comic won't work or look the same on film.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. In most of the images released so far, Superman is presented in the centre of the image, full-frame, from a distance, and without much around him. In many of the Reeve photos, he's in the centre of the image, but moved forward with things around him that establish scale. People are also running through 4 films worth of remembered imagery w/Reeve, as opposed to a few video-clips, and a handful of stllls. I still think when the film is scene as a whole, it will work.
I also expect it will blow the doors off of X3!

[WoodenDummy]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. In most of the images released so far, Superman is presented in the centre of the image, full-frame, from a distance, and without much around him. In many of the Reeve photos, he's in the centre of the image, but moved forward with things around him that establish scale. People are also running through 4 films worth of remembered imagery w/Reeve, as opposed to a few video-clips, and a handful of stllls. I still think when the film is scene as a whole, it will work.
I also expect it will blow the doors off of X3!

What I'm saying is that if they made him to big it wouldn't look right on screen, it would probably look a little silly.

I agree he IS a big guy and I don't know what people are moaning about myself. I'm looking forward to it.

[Ontir]

Oh. OK.

Looking forward to it, myself!

[Kara Zor El]

It's not released in Britain 'till tomorrow. So was he a whimp or what?

[Dussan]

It's not released in Britain 'till tomorrow. So was he a whimp or what?
No, Routh is a pretty athletic and tall guy.

there is a sequence in the movie that shows how strong he is. problem withthe movie is that there are not enough action scenes.

BUt after watching it a couple of times, I liked it. They got it right.

Next film, MORE ACTION.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

It's not released in Britain 'till tomorrow. So was he a whimp or what?


Not, but he´s a homewrecking stalker who owes Lois 5 years in allimony

[Simon Garth]

I keep seeing this "5 years away" / "5 year-old child" combination mentioned, as though it's an obvious 2+2=4 solution (or 5-5=Supes+Lois).

But... if the kid's 5 now, and Supes has been away for 5 years, then the kid would have to have been conceived nearly 6 years ago - so either Lois was romping with Cyclops before Supes left, or there is no doubt at all whose child it is - so what's with all the "it's implied that the child is his" comments?

[Ontir]

You have to have been married to get alimony, and you have to have lived together to get Palimony. They did neither, so Superman owes neither. He's also not a homewrecker, as he can't be with Lois, whom I believe to still be with Richard White, at the end of the film.

There are TONS of action scenes, all through this film. What people seem to be griping about, is that Superman doesn't beat anyone up.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

[Spoi]You have to have been married to get alimony, and you have to have lived together to get Palimony. They did neither, so Superman owes neither. He's also not a homewrecker, as he can't be with Lois, whom I believe to still be with Richard White, at the end of the film.[/B]

Next time I get a girl pregnant, can I use that excuse to bail out on them?

[protonik]

He got the role because Brian Singer is gay, and he wanted a homosexual in the role of Superman, to give gay kids a role model, since Superman lives a double life just as homos do.

This is no joke

Yeah, too bad it isn't true

[Yoda]

You have to have been married to get alimony, and you have to have lived together to get Palimony. They did neither, so Superman owes neither. He's also not a homewrecker, as he can't be with Lois, whom I believe to still be with Richard White, at the end of the film.

There are TONS of action scenes, all through this film. What people seem to be griping about, is that Superman doesn't beat anyone up.

He would owe some back child support though.

[Dussan]

He would owe some back child support though.

Nope. Richard WHite, and Lois are claiming the father of the child is Richard. So legally, morally, and the eyes of God, Richard White is the boys father.

Supes is a glorified sperm donor.

[Yoda]

Nope. Richard WHite, and Lois are claiming the father of the child is Richard. So legally, morally, and the eyes of God, Richard White is the boys father.

Supes is a glorified sperm donor.

That just means that Richard would probably also be on the hook as well. Supes is one paternity test away from oweing Lois some $$$. And since Richard and Lois aren't married, he wouldn't even have that presumption working against him in most states.

[Ontir]

He would owe some back child support though.

Assuming you can do the DNA test to prove paternity! Also, I seem to recall there being something about the father of record. If Richard is on the birth certificate, getting him replaced isn't so easy, and with that in place, Superman owes nothing.

[phantom1592]

Assuming you can do the DNA test to prove paternity! Also, I seem to recall there being something about the father of record. If Richard is on the birth certificate, getting him replaced isn't so easy, and with that in place, Superman owes nothing.

Here kid, bend this steel pipe....... Yup, he's mine ]

[Kara Zor El]

Here kid, bend this steel pipe....... Yup, he's mine ]

Ha ha! Nice one. And if he burrows to the center of the Earth during a throw himself on the floor tantrum, then that sinches it.

Glad to hear the new guy aint a whimp. Where are all the posters who used this thread to diss him? Have you changed your minds now you've seen it or do you still feel the same way.

My worry was I'd find it hard to like him as much as I did Chris.

Does anyone who thought the same way, actually prefer Brandon, like him as much or still feel the same way?

[PrimalScream]

I think George Reeves looked more like Superman.

george reeves was fat or certainly not slim/body builder type.

[Smarty Jones]

He does look like Superman -- a YOUNG, if not VERY YOUNG, Superman.

The problem is not with Superman's build or size, but the fact that Brandon Routh looks like someone in his early to mid-20s person playing Superman. The story lends itself to a more veteran Superman based on the premise that he's an experienced superhero who left the planet for a prolonged period.

I know Christopher Reeve was the same age as Routh when he played Superman in "Superman: The Movie," so it's not an age thing. It's more of a "where-is-Superman-at-this-stage-of-his-life" thing, because Routh is playing an older, more experienced Superman than the one Reeve played in "Superman: The Movie" and "Superman II."

A similar problem exists with Kate Bosworth, who looks like the college-age person she is. You couldn't look at her seriously and think she's a veteran, Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who has a 5-year-old child -- she looked and acted like an intern or someone just out of journalism school.

The ages of the actors playing Superman and Lois Lane weren't befitting the script and premise of "Superman Returns." As frightening as it sounds, the script would have worked better from a presentation standpoint if late 30s/early 40s Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher were playing Clark/Superman and Lois.

All the more reason to have made "Superman Returns" a reboot -- it would have been more convincing if Routh was playing a novice Superman and Bosworth a fresh-out-of-college Lois Lane.

[phantom1592]

[color=darkred][font=arial]He does look like Superman -- a YOUNG, if not VERY YOUNG, Superman.

The problem is not with Superman's build or size, but the fact that Brandon Routh looks like someone in his early to mid-20s person playing Superman. The story lends itself to a more veteran Superman based on the premise that he's an experienced superhero who left the planet for a prolonged period.



I'll agree with that. Lois does NOT look like she had any adventures for over 5 years and still have been out of college.

I'm not sure what it is with Superman. It may be the costume changes, it may be the age, I'm not sure. I really enjoyed it when I was watching it, but both before and after... Routh just isn't superman to me. Chris Reeves I've seen in lots of other stuff and I can seperate the actor from the character, but the costume was PERFECT. The Hair was perfect. When he stood there in costume, the actor disappeared and it felt like I was watching SUPERMAN.

With Routh its more of "He looks LIKE Superman" or "someone DRESSED like superman" But I just can't make the leap to saying that WAS Superman like I could with Reeves.

[Rexi]

Assuming you can do the DNA test to prove paternity! Also, I seem to recall there being something about the father of record. If Richard is on the birth certificate, getting him replaced isn't so easy, and with that in place, Superman owes nothing.
all you need for a parternity test is saliva right? i dont think we will need a kryptonite needle or anything for blood so it shouldnt be too tough.

[Ontir]

The assumption is that there's DNA in the saliva. He IS an alien! Jason probably has some funky stuff going on in his genetics, which is probably why all the allergies.

[Smarty Jones]

"I'm not sure what it is with Superman. It may be the costume changes, it may be the age, I'm not sure. I really enjoyed it when I was watching it, but both before and after... Routh just isn't superman to me."

I was like you in that regard, until I surmised the reason I may think like that is because 1.) my frame of reference based on seeing Chistopher Reeve and Brandon Routh playing Superman and 2.) where Superman is supposed to be in his career in regards to the movies.

I was about 10 years old when "Superman: The Movie" came out and like most adults then, and Reeve looked larger than life. In my frame of reference most adults seemed much older and bigger than what they may have. Now at my current age, someone 26 years old (in this case, Routh) seems to look younger than people at age 26 in the late '70s (Reeve). It's a perception based on my perspective at that stage of my life.

I feel the other problem is that if "Superman Returns" is some sequel to "Superman II," then you're expecting to see an older Superman than what Routh depicts. Based on the set-up and our perspectives and knowledge of source material (comic books, the first two Reeve movies), Routh should be playing an older, more experienced Superman than the one Reeve is playing. The problem is that Routh should be playing a early to mid-30s Superman but he looks like an early to mid-20s Superman.

I blame the latter on the script; the actors should look reasonably age-appropriate for their roles, but Routh and especially Kate Bosworth look too young for where Superman/Clark Kent and Lois Lane should be in the lives. It's all the more reason for "Superman Returns" to have been a reboot (not a semi-sequel/remake) of the Superman franchise; I feel that if Routh and Bosworth were playing young, fresh-out-of-college versions of Superman and Lois their credibility would be more accepting.