Will we see a sequel to SUPERMAN RETURNS?

These are interesting times for the so-called “blockbuster” movie. Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures supposedly paid over two-hundred million dollars on a character drama that deals with such themes as the folly of trying to relive one’s past and the consequences of one’s actions – a movie peppered with religious symbolism and allegory – all because the main character happens to be Superman. The thing is, most people now seem to want mindless escapism, not themes and emotionally scarred characters and religious allegory, as is evidenced by the popularity of “Dead Man’s Chest” and “Talladega Nights.”

Uh, no.

The movie was badly made, and borrowed heavily from the first (and much more superior) Donner film. Half the dialoge and all of the plot came from the first Superman movie. A good majority of the CGI was badly done, as was the 3D gimmick.

The religious sybolism was as subtle as a brick, there was no spark between Lois and Supes (or Lois and Clark for that matter) to get the audience emotionally invested in the outcome, and there was no real thought to the timeline of events explaining Lois' miraculous conception.

But hey, if you want to write it off as an art film that the 'unwashed masses just don't understand', cool. Whatever floats your boat.

Honestly, if Singer wanted to make an introspective, navel gazing movie, he shouldn't have picked a superhero with a 70 year history to mess with in the first place.

THANK YOU. I was wary of this movie ever since I heard that Singer (usually a very smart guy) was planning to make a sequal to Superman and Superman II. It's been 19 years since Superman IV was in theaters, so WHY NOT START OVER? The real irony here is that everybody had a huge boner for this movie because Singer was doing it, everybody talked about how much X3 was going to suck because Singer wasn't doing it...well, some people may have still hated X3, but it was better than this POS.

". . . borrowed heavily from the first (and much more superior) Donner film."

". . . deals with such themes as the folly of trying to relive one’s past. . . ."

Much of the movie intentionally mirrored Donner's film, offering a sadder interpretation of these events this time around to play on what I mentioned above. But my point is that most people now are more interested in escapism, in simply having a good time. Whether you believe it succeeded or failed, "Superman Returns" did make an attempt to challenge the audience, and I'm not sure that's something a lot of people want from a big blockbuster. This is not necessarily a good or bad thing, but an observation.

You know, The Matrix Trilogy was considered a "thinking man's" action movie. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way with the fans. Scholars, maybe, but not the fans. I, however, liked The Matrix Trilogy's approach and thought they were some of the best sci-fi/action films. The first two Superman movies were superb (I'm looking forward to Richard Donner's director's cut of Superman II in November) and I even liked Superman III, despite Richard Lester's crappy slap-stick comedy routines. The junkyard fight was great and I felt that the evil Superman should've had a bigger part in the movie; such as escaping Clark Kent and joining forces with Ross Webster. On top of that, it needed improved editing and visual effects (i.e. the visible wires carrying Christopher Reeve as he flew around and the cheap matte work). As far as the critics were concerned, Superman IV was worse than III. But I liked IV just as much as its predecessor. Maybe they should recut and restore Superman III and IV. They have the extended footage of both movies. As far as Superman Returns goes, what more can be said about it? I do believe that it was unfair that they retconned Superman III and IV out of existence for this film. Between III and Returns, Bizarro (a.k.a. evil Superman) made a much better villain. The two Nuclear Men in IV were decent, but the acting could've been improved on the part of the second Nuclear Man. And they thought the franchise was ruined after Superman IV? It doesn't seem to be too promising now, either.

I hear there's a hilarious deleted scene from "Superman III" where drunk Superman slips on a banana peel and splits a building in half.

Dersu, I totally agree with you on the 1st post. It may not have worked for the general movie going public, but I did like the more human, tortured side of Supes. I`m not a huge Supes fan but for me it worked. I do think Singer did himself a disservice by trying to recreate the magic of the first 2 movies and should have moved away from them.
The Matrix trilogy was a very intelligent action genre movie, but the last one's very ending felt forced and flat. I watched supes 3 and 4 when I was a kid and liked them, but after watching them again, they suck, and don't hold the same water as the first 2.
If they actually do another Superman hopefully it is more action filled with less emotional drama then the first. Come on Renderman72, I know you want to chime in.

Superman Returns was exactly what it was supposed to be and about as good as it could get being that it was part Sequel and part intro film. The problem lies in that mix which I don't think can successfully be done. You can't have a sequel to such a high profile character, especially a superhero, where people will be expecting him to out perform a "Neo" with his powers and strength, but at the same time attempt to intro the film to newer and younger audiences who may not know him (if there is anyone who doesn't know Superman). This movie intro'd Superman like we didn't know he could save people in a falling building or use super breath or even x-ray vision. That part was the problem. Seeing him lift the continent was noteworthy and a good escalation as a sequel because that demonstrated strength that we rarely see from him or anyone anywhere...

Pardon me, I meant falling airplane (not building)! BTW i think that was done to add to the "where were you?" syndrome when the 9/11 incident happened and Superman could have stopped those planes... Just a thought.

It was the best film of the year, recieved rave reviews from critics and fans alike, good word of mouth and the inflated budget was due to 10 plus years of development hell. It would be foolish not to make a sequel.