Man of Steel

[johnnygobbs]

The worst aspect of Superman Returns for me was being expected to believe that Kate Bosworth was a veteran Pulitzer Prize winning journalist when she looked about 21 in the film, which would have made her 16 when Superman first disappeared from Metropolis?!?

[riddler]

Does Returns outright contradict any plot points which happened in III and IV? I felt it was too wishy washy with it's continuity; It leaves too much grey area where the viewer wonders "did the last 2 films happen' and 'what year does it take place'. Should have either taken place in the 21st century with the assumption the last 2 films happened or set in the 80's  as the rebooted 3rd film.

It is a big leap of faith to ignore continuity and pretend half the series didn't happen. I feel if you're going to do that, you better do it right because you're outright implying the second half of the series wasn't worthwhile. Returns is better than the 3rd and 4th films but not by a lot.

[gordonblu]

Superman IV states that Martha Kent had passed away, while Returns had her still living.


Random useless fact pertaining to Man of Steel: Both performers to appear as Superman's biological and adopted fathers have also played Robin Hood. No profound point, just thought it was funny.

[Batman88]

I never really got why Madonna did all that pretending to puke kind of thing behind Kevin's back. He'd been nice towards her. It's not like he'd insulted her.

She's no class act. He is.

[The Dark Knight]

I never really got why Madonna did all that pretending to puke kind of thing behind Kevin's back. He'd been nice towards her. It's not like he'd insulted her.

She's no class act. He is.

What's this about?

[Batman88]

I never really got why Madonna did all that pretending to puke kind of thing behind Kevin's back. He'd been nice towards her. It's not like he'd insulted her.

She's no class act. He is.

What's this about?

Madonna's Truth or Dare 1991 documentary chronicled her 1990 Blond Ambition tour.

Madonna parties with several celebrities, including Dick Tracy co-stars Al Pacino and Mandy Patinkin, and Olivia Newton-John.
Kevin Costner "offends" Madonna by calling her show "neat". Madonna pretends to gag after he leaves.

But, it seems Madonna patched things up years later: http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=263753

[johnnygobbs]

Does Returns outright contradict any plot points which happened in III and IV? I felt it was too wishy washy with it's continuity; It leaves too much grey area where the viewer wonders "did the last 2 films happen' and 'what year does it take place'. Should have either taken place in the 21st century with the assumption the last 2 films happened or set in the 80's  as the rebooted 3rd film.

It is a big leap of faith to ignore continuity and pretend half the series didn't happen. I feel if you're going to do that, you better do it right because you're outright implying the second half of the series wasn't worthwhile. Returns is better than the 3rd and 4th films but not by a lot.

Superman IV was pretty atrocious.  I personally enjoy it as a piece of campy fun (although I believe Christopher Reeve genuinely believed he was making a fairly earnest polemic about the nuclear arms race) and there are plenty of incidental pleasures such as the return of Gene Hackman who at least seems to be enjoying himself, Jon Cryer 'break-dancing', the beautiful Mariel Hemingway as Clark's new spoiled rich love interest, the screwball comedy of the 'double-date' scene and a brief comedy cameo from Jim Broadbent along with William Hootkins ('Eckhart' from Batman '89 and of course, 'Porkins' from SW: Episode IV).  However, it was still a pretty bad film and I can entirely understand why Bryan Singer would want to disassociate 'Superman Returns' from it.

It's completely unlikely but how cool would it be if somebody did a belated sequel to the Burton Batman films ignoring 'Batman Forever' and 'Batman & Robin'?  Maybe one should be grateful to Singer for at least demonstrating that the concept is feasible.

[riddler]

Does Returns outright contradict any plot points which happened in III and IV? I felt it was too wishy washy with it's continuity; It leaves too much grey area where the viewer wonders "did the last 2 films happen' and 'what year does it take place'. Should have either taken place in the 21st century with the assumption the last 2 films happened or set in the 80's  as the rebooted 3rd film.

It is a big leap of faith to ignore continuity and pretend half the series didn't happen. I feel if you're going to do that, you better do it right because you're outright implying the second half of the series wasn't worthwhile. Returns is better than the 3rd and 4th films but not by a lot.

Superman IV was pretty atrocious.  I personally enjoy it as a piece of campy fun (although I believe Christopher Reeve genuinely believed he was making a fairly earnest polemic about the nuclear arms race) and there are plenty of incidental pleasures such as the return of Gene Hackman who at least seems to be enjoying himself, Jon Cryer 'break-dancing', the beautiful Mariel Hemingway as Clark's new spoiled rich love interest, the screwball comedy of the 'double-date' scene and a brief comedy cameo from Jim Broadbent along with William Hootkins ('Eckhart' from Batman '89 and of course, 'Porkins' from SW: Episode IV).  However, it was still a pretty bad film and I can entirely understand why Bryan Singer would want to disassociate 'Superman Returns' from it.

It's completely unlikely but how cool would it be if somebody did a belated sequel to the Burton Batman films ignoring 'Batman Forever' and 'Batman & Robin'?  Maybe one should be grateful to Singer for at least demonstrating that the concept is feasible.

Well I think Tim Burton's superman film would have taken place in the same continuity as his batman films. Even though forever and robin were out at the time, I doubt he would have included them in the continuity.

Wes craven kind of did when he returned to the nightmare on elm street series; basically ignored everything that happened since the 3rd film.

Sadly has there ever been a sequel to a film which had since been rebooted or remade? It would be completely unprecedented to revisit the Burton series now that the Nolan series rebooted it.

[johnnygobbs]

Sadly has there ever been a sequel to a film which had since been rebooted or remade? It would be completely unprecedented to revisit the Burton series now that the Nolan series rebooted it.

I can't think of any but reboots are a relatively recent trend.

Well I think Tim Burton's superman film would have taken place in the same continuity as his batman films. Even though forever and robin were out at the time, I doubt he would have included them in the continuity.

That's interesting.  Do you know who was set to star in the film apart from Nicholas Cage as 'Superman'?  If not who do you think should have been cast around the period 'Superman Lives' was set to be made?

[phantom stranger]

I know Superman Returns is pretty much reviled by most of the regulars on this site so I don't suppose this article

Admittedly, I was one of the "revilers" but I've recently changed my opinion for several reasons:

1) I can appreciate the film for what it tried to be- a love letter to the Reeve films

2) Now that we got a "real" Superman reboot there's no need to bash SR anymore. Mission accomplished

3) I recently met Routh and he's a really nice guy.

It still has a lot of flaws but I'm going to overlook them from now on...