It really didn't sense that they needed Returns to be a sequel to the Christopher Reeve movies when they could've very easily have done a hard reboot like Batman Begins a year before.
Maybe they thought Christopher Reeve Superman was too iconic to be rebooted or just made it as nostalgia bait.
The previous attempt at doing a superman reboot to the Burton Batman was canceled. This was an attempt at making the bridge from Christopher Reeves style Superman to a Noland Batman style Superman. It's not great, but it's still not as poorly received as Superman 3 & 4.
True enough. This one is a forgettable mediocrity, whereas those others (4 most particularly) are unforgettable in the worst way.
shareDoing a loose sequel I can only understand it if your doing something like Ghostbusters Afterlife or Halloween 2018 where you bring back the OG cast as older versions but doing it with a different cast not so much, when you have something as iconic as Christopher Reeve Superman your off your rocker thinking your gonna come close to it. There's quite a bit of the OG movies that don't quite work with 2006 audiences very well, some of them feel like classic 70's style stuff and feels awkward and clunky in a modern film like Returns. Since the Christopher Reeves movies ended we got newer takes with Lois & Clark and Smallville, the comics have also changed with the Death & Return Of Superman and him marrying Lois, which made this loose sequel take of Returns pointless.
shareI think you're right. We saw Batman become Batman and Robin. Superman was pretty much untouchable as it's own thing. I think the cartoon was the best followup.
shareIf your gonna do a new version you have to tell it in a different way or update it especially if there's a previous one that's iconic, you give us the same thing in a new gift wrapping we're gonna open it up and say "dude I already got one of these".
The Animated Series would've been a good source of inspiration.
I fully agree.
shareIn the 90s Burton intended to reboot the mythos in his own unique style (but don't think it would've dealt with the origin except maybe some flashbacks) and unlikely to have much call back to the earlier movies, although it was rumoured Christopher Reeve would cameo, allegedly as Clark Kents friend. I vaguely recall there were unfounded rumours that Reeve would be Superman at the start fighting Doomsday (via early CGI his face mapped on stuntman for Superman's body which had happened with Dicaprio/Winslet in a scene in Titanic). Superman is killed then is rejuvenated (like Dr Who) into Nicolas Cage. but it doesn't sound likely Burton would've done that (the fact Lois, Jimmy, Lex etc would be different actors for one thing.. Sandra Bullock, Linda Fiorentino or Courtney Cox as Lois, Chris Rock as Jimmy, Jack Nicolson or Kevin Spacey as Lex)
Then there were other reboot attempts in the 2000s from Wolfgang Peterson (Batman v Superman with Christian Bale or Colin Farrel as Batman and Jude Law/Josh Harnett as Superman), McG and Ratner directing 'Superman Flyby' which would've totally rebooted the origin (the infamous JJ Abrams script where Krypton didn't explode, Lex is a kryptonian etc) before Singer came on board (essentially poached by WBros from Fox's XMen3) to do his life long dream of making a 'vague sequel' to Donners Superman (so much so hed even broached his desire to make a sequel to Richard Donner in the years before) done in the vein of James Bond where everything is retained like score, certain supporting actors (Q etc) except the main actor guy is different/but same age in modern world. I have a magazine from the time where Singer is interviewed and he says something like 'ideally it would be Christopher Reeve back in the role, but since that isn't possible its like a vague sequel..with Superman feeling as though he's stepped out of the collective consciousness and part of that is he resembles Reeve '
So basically the reason SR was a sequel was due to Bryan Singer, where had one of the other previous directors attached made it happen it'd have been a reboot like Batman Begins
DC often Singer tons of material from the last twenty years to draw inspiration from but insisted on using the Donnerverse, as said it really doesn't make any sense that Singer needed it to be a sequel, it was something made that's pointless, if Superman 1 was Psycho the Returns is the pointless shot for shot Gus Van Sant remake.
Returns isn't a film that infuriates me over it's existence, it's not something like BVS or Justice League where I'm like "No no you fucked it up", it's something that exists that's pointless and unnecessary, by the time the first Iron Man came around nearly everyone had forgotten about it.
The answer to why Singer went with the Donnerverse is in your OP
shareAnother flaw with Returns being a loose sequel, the whole Superman/Clark/Lois triangle kind of become time worn to have Lois not know Clark was Superman, it's kind hard to have a version where they're same couple as they were in the Christopher Reeve movies or TAS, it's pointless not having her know in a film that's not an origin story and again makes this loose sequel take of Returns pointless.
shareWell SR was attempting to go with the Superman wiped her memory with the kiss from SII (or maybe time travel if using the Donner Cut?!) but its all very vague. Its not entirely clear if she knows it not. and the fact she's way too young to be a Lois with 5y old kid. Its all abit of a mess
shareSR was a few decades behind to where people are with Superman when we got newer takes with Lois & Clark and Smallville, which made this loose sequel take of SR pointless, if your gonna do a new film or TV show you have to tell it in a different way or update otherwise people are gonna think "dude I've seen this".
Kate Bosworth was horribly miscast as Lois, she has none of the elements that other actresses brought to the character, she looks like a 15 year old school girl than a fearless reporter, not only was she too young she just doesn't have that tough snarky edge that Margot Kidder, Erica Durance or Teri Hatcher have.
Then there's Lex Luthor being a crazy guy who wants to do real estate schemes with kryptonite, we've moved past the Gene Hackman version doing real estate to Lex Luthor being a public figure who runs corporations whose a super villain behind closed doors, which what we got in Lois & Clark and Smallville, it made SR feel ancient because it isn't where Superman is at.
Spacey could've been public figure/businessman Lex Luthor whose secretly an evil man since is one in real life.
If you were to ask me what the film should've been ideally instead of a loose sequel to Superman 1&2, you wanted a plane rescue an adaptation of John Byrne's Man Of Steel.
shareIt’s interesting how Brandon Routh as Christopher Reeve as Superman, Kevin Spacey as Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, Marlon Brando, and some of John Williams’ original score are the only connections to the first two movies while everything else is totally different and clearly not set in the same time period a 5-year gap would take place. It would be like if someone made an Indiana Jones movie with an actor who looks like 1980s Harrison Ford but still having the movie set in modern times instead of the 1930s/1940s
shareWith a 22y old Marion (who looks nothing like Karen Allen) who Indiana has a 6y old kid with
shareit was obviously an attempt to tap in to the fond memories people had of the originals,
similar to bring back keaton in recent DC films
i think it was a brilliant idea,
even though you could argue it didn't succeed as well as they thought it might
( but neither did keaton's return )
Problem was it wasn't where Superman is at.
Since the Christopher Reeve movies ended the comics had changed, Lex Luthor is now a public figure who runs corporations and is a super villain behind the scenes, Lois later knows Clark is Superman and later married.
the vast majority of the public was ( and still is ) unaware of the comic book story
it is completely irrelevant to what the films do
Continuing the OG movies 20 years late made Returns feel ancient, Lex Luthor being a wild guy who does real estate with kryptonite or nuclear weapons isn't where the character is at, the evil businessman Lex is what we got in Lois & Clark and Smallville, Lois knowing Clark is Superman is what we've got in L&C, Smallville, Man Of Steel and Superman & Lois, which once again makes Returns feel ancient.
It would've been time for a movie to go with the newer approach of Lex and Superman & Lois Lane, which would've led to better stronger dramatic possibilities.
At least this film was a masterpiece compared to Man of Steel.
And Brandon Routh was Christopher Reeve compared to the petrified wood Henry Cavill.
Not 100% a masterpiece but it's not a comic book movie that infuriates me like BVS, it's something made that could've easily have been a reboot not a legacy sequel.
The main positives are Brandon Routh, the plane rescue, the production design, Sam Huntington as Jimmy and Frank Langella as Perry White. The negatives are Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, love triangle and the lack of action.
Routh was wasted more than Cavill.
Agreed on all your points except Kate Bosworth, I thought she was a nice Lois Lane, certainly (this might sound cruel) she was much prettier than Margo Kidder even though she wasn't as good an actress, and also far better than Amy Adams in MOS (who isn't a bad actress either).
The plane rescue does stand out. That was spectacular. And Spacey was a good Lex, certainly better than the kojak looking guy from Smallville.
Bryan Singer certainly knew how to tap into the spirit and tone of the Reeve movies with Returns, even if it couldn't match the quality of Superman I & II. MOS was a dull and dreary bore and makes Returns look better in retrospect.
It's a common complaint that Kate Bosworth was too young to be Lois Lane and was too much of a girl next door type. If you ask me you need a Courteney Cox type for Lois. The most Lois Lane we got in the last twenty years was on television with Smallville and Superman & Lois.
Problem in making Returns a loose sequel since the Christopher Reeve movies ended a lot has changed in the development of Superman. Lex Luthor was now a public rich figure who runs corporations who is a super villain behind the scenes (very much like Spacey) and that's the version we got in Lois & Clark, TAS and Smallville. Also I think we've moved past the whole Lois love Superman but resents Clark and never knowing he's Superman, as seen with Smallville, DCEU, Superman & Lois and My Adventures With Superman. Which made Returns feel dated because it's not in sync with where Superman is at since the OG movies ended.
DCEU Supes was a Dark Knight wannabe who can fly the entire time, outside of the one time he was classic Supes in the crappy version of Justice League directed by Joss Whedon, the most Superman the DCEU version ever was is in the version of the film that everybody hates.
The most Superman we got in movies in the last decade was Captain America in the MCU.
Kate Bosworth's Lois is more glamourus like a Vicki Vale, I suppose. Sounds like Lois was meant to be a more understated beauty. Kidder filled that role really well.
You seem well versed in the Superman universe, I'm not too familiar with it. I grew up watching Christopher Reeve in the first four films but never got into the Dean Cain or Tom Welling things. Never saw Affleck, Watching Returns in the cinema was a fun experience, though. Man of Steel less so.
I don't see any indication this is a sequel other than Singer saying so. This feels like they took the idea of the first superman Reeves film and just modified it. The truth is, for a big Superman man Singer says he is, I don't understand why he would be so unambitious with the amount of villians Superman could have gone up against.
Apart from the plane scene, this is dull.
Make no reference to Superman 1&2, just used a CG Marion Brando and John Williams score.
Could've gone with Brainiac, if this was a return to Earth story have Brainiac follow Superman back to Earth.
Yeah that story should have been it. Hopefully the new Superman film will at least have a new villian and not go back again to the same bad guys that have been on screen like in man of steel. Not that I am sure it will be that good.
share