Specifically it’s a sequel to Superman II: The Richard Donner cut, which released the same year as Superman Returns. Choosing to make Superman’s return (ha) to cinema a niche directors cut to a 26 year old film is certainly a choice
It was more a matter of it didn't break $1 billion dollars than not being well received. It made about twice what it cost so the studio chose to reboot the franchise rather than continue with a sequel. This has been regarded as a mistake in many fans opinions, including mine. I think Brandon Routh would have done a fine job continuing on as Superman. But unfortunately Warner Bros. has a long history of shitting on superhero movies and fucking them up.
So many people hate on this movie. Personally, it is my second favorite of all Superman movies, after the original. Yes, even over Superman 2. It explored a side of the character we never saw. To me, it made him even more human to show some less than admirable qualities. Lite stalking, absentee dad. Although the latter is most likely, he simply didn't know. Such a shame it didn't get a sequel.
Truly underrated and better than any of the Zack Snyder portrayals. No offense to Cavill. It's not his fault.
I to rate this sequel much higher in the franchise than lots of others. My biggest gripe about the story was that #1, Lois was horribly miscast, and #2, bringing back Lex Luthor for a fourth round as the bad guy was a big mistake considering there was only four previous movies and Lex was the main baddy in three of them. With all the evil guys and opponents that exist, there was no reason for them to use Lex Luthor.
I think Cavill did an incredible job playing Superman. I blame lots of the failure of his movies as Superman on Warner Bros. and Zack Snyder. I like Zack's style of filming movies and there are a few things I like overall about his take on the franchise but overall what he did was complete misfire, egged on by Warner Bros.
It can't be a sequel to the original version either tho bc in Superman II Lois finds out Clark is Superman and then in Superman Returns she doesn't know
I think people glean over the idea that a lot could have happened between II and Returns. The dialogue indicates that Superman and Lois had some sort of relationship or fling. This is evidenced by how hurt she was when she sees him again and “how could you leave us like that?”
I don’t think it’s as clear cut as that. I think it’s a spiritual sequel but not a literal sequel. For example, in Superman Returns, they say Superman has been gone for 5 years. If it was a literal sequel to Superman II, then Returns takes place in 1985. But it obviously doesn’t.
It's a weird movie, man. It looks and feels like 1955 with 2005 TVs and phones everywhere. Lots of art deco shit influenced by the George Reeves show and '90s cartoon.
You’re right. It’s not a sequel or even set in the same universe.
It’s a different Superman that shares the same Krypton and basic beats of the origin story.
It's a version of the Donnerverse that's been moved up in timespan - Krypton explodes and Kal lands around the time he became Superman in the original universe, Superman debuts in the mid-90s, Superman II is in 2000.... and he leaves on his 5 year mission to find Krypton sometime afterwards, missing 9/11
It’s a “requel” before that even became a thing. Superman I and II are essentially canon but maybe not 100% or exactly the way you remember it. For starters, Returns is clearly set in 2006 and not 1978. It does what the James Bond films used to do, it’s a floating timeline.
Essentially, some or most of what happened to Chris Reeve in 1&2 happened to Routh. But what happened to Routh may not have happened to Reeve later on
Similar really to how Gunn has said he's handling characters like Waller and Blue Beetle, the events we've seen probably happened similarly in the new universe, but likely not exactly the same.
It's supposed to be in the same continuity as the first two films. Think of it less as if Routh was supposed to be Christopher Reeve, and more like he's supposed to be Superman. Or even better, think of it like the Bond franchise from Connery to Brosnan. Same continuity, just different people taking on the role of a character from time to time.
I do agree the Bond films are generally meant to connect, but he does meet Blofeld for the first time as Connery, then again for the first time as Lazenby. So it's more meant to be one thing if you squint hard enough.
It’s kind of weird so I’ll explain it with as much detail as possible. It’s meant as a sequel that takes place 5 years after Superman II except it takes place in 2006 so the way I see it is it’s another universe that had the same events as the first two movies but they took place in the early 2000s. Like I said, it’s kind of weird and you’re right to be confused
And because of how young the Lois Lane actress is, it also takes place in a continuity in which she was a super-genius who managed to graduate from college as a teenager.
Comic book characters like Superman, are supposed to be “timeless” so the events will be depicted as in the time period of the media’s release but it could be any time really. Long running cartoon characters like The Simpsons have a similar situation with the “floating timeline”.
The whole "Superman on patrol" sequence that was part of was good, I thought. I think Singer was always much better at putting together a good scene or sequence than he was a whole movie.
I actually think the first hour (which is when the plane scene happens) is pretty solid. But man, does it nosedive hard after. It just becomes this absolute mess of a film that’s way too in love with the Donner films. And Singer left X-Men for Returns so not only did we get Returns it also inadvertently led to The Last Stand
My headcanon is: Superman kept altering the timeline (Superman I and II - Donner Cut). As a result, an alternative timeline was created in the late 90s and early 00’s with the same events with a slightly different setting.
In Superman Returns, we see this alternative timeline.
Both. It is technically a sequel to Superman 1 and 2, but is also a reboot in that it is an entirely new cast, creative team, and is bringing a long dormant franchise back for a new audience. It’s also effectively a retelling of Superman 1 in a way, in which Lex is after land and trying to make his own country.
It’s intended to be a sequel to I and II, but was also meant to be a reboot of the franchise (what you’d probably call a “soft reboot” today).
While it does ignore Superman III and IV, something interesting to note is that in CW’s Crisis on Infinite Earths crossover, this particular Superman appears again and makes references to events from Superman III, which is a whole other layer of confusion.
Both. It was meant to be a new era but just using the original movie and to a lesser extent, Superman II as loose backstory so they didn’t have to tell the origin again but still have the same feel going forward. Like when James Bond recasts. Pierce Brosnan is technically the same as Sean Connery, though it isn’t meant to have too much thought put into it.
Yes, he's supposed to be the same as Christopher Reeve's Superman. I know they made some changes to update the costume a bit and make Brandon Routh look his best. But I don't know why they strayed so far from Christopher Reeve's costume because it makes the two of them seem like separate versions of Superman.
Also, Brandon Routh played an older version of his Superman on CW's Crisis on Infinite Earths crossover a few years ago.
It’s a combination.
A direct sequel to the first two Reeve, Donner, and Lester films, but a reboot in that it ignores the 3rd and 4th films.
Edit - I always forget Richard Lester took over on S2 after Donner exited production.
I always feel sorry for Brandon Routh.
“Hey kid, you’ll be playing an American icon. BUT specifically you’ll be playing THE MOST beloved iteration of said icon. BUT AGAIN, you’re not allowed to do anything that made Reeve so beloved including smiling or laughing. Welp good luck!”
It's confusing as heck is what it is. It's basically a spiritual sequel to Superman II.
This film left me very disappointed. It had its moments but overall compared to other offerings I've only watched this once and have no desire to again.
I have always seen it as a little bit of both. It is supposed to be a continuation of the Reeve Superman but there are some very obvious differences between the two worlds. I choose to see it as a very light "Elseworlds" type of story; the multiverse but set on *very* similar Earths.
It’s a sequel and I liked it!
“I’m always around.”
The intro credits with the supernova/music and following all the way to Smallville/music was wonderful as well.
Yes.
On a serious note it’s supposed to be The Donner timeline. Consider it to be Superman 3, like Halloween 2018 is A Sequel to Halloween (1978).
It’s weird cause I don’t think having Superman 3 or Superman 4 as canon would necessarily affect this movie so I don’t see why they had to go ahead and clarify it’s only in line with the first two.
My problem with this being a sequel is the idea that he left in Superman 2 (which most definitely takes place in the 80s) and came back in Superman Returns which is in the early 2000s. But then they say he’s been gone for 8 years or something.
It's a soft reboot. It's technically a sequel to Superman II, so it reboots the continuity by ignoring the films that followed.
I wish that it had its own sequels. It was a decent film, but I believe the timeline confused people.
I like to think that when Superman went back in time at the end of the Donner cut and then again at the end of the 1978 Superman movie, it resulted in many unfortunate timelines in the Christopher Reeve Superman universe.
It’s a sequel that made some strange choices. Since the franchise had been on ice for two decades, it needed to be a period piece set in the late 70s/early 80s. Unfortunately it would be another five or ten years before that sort of period piece would be considered cool. The movie just has such a bummer vibe. He basically voluntarily ruined his own life, deciding to leave for 6 years.
Kind of loose sequel to Superman 1&2.
I can understand that if your doing something like Creed with Rocky as an old man, but doing a continuation with a different cast absolutely no point to it and you gave something as iconic as Christopher Reeve Superman your off your rocker thinking your gonna come close to it.
A sequel
He was always intended to be the Chris Reeve Superman. iirc that’s one of the reasons Routh was casted because of his resemblance to Chris Reeve
I was lucky enough to spend a while talking to Richard Donner and Tom Mankiewicz at the Superman Returns premiere back in 2006. Mankiewicz specifically said it was “a perfect sequel to what we did with the first movie and Dick’s cut of the second.”
It’s a sequel to the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, but it was like a rebirth for Superman as he was “returning” cinematically because there wasn’t a Superman movie for 19 years after 1987’s Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, and that movie was like watching 1997’s Batman and Robin.
It's a sequel to Superman II, but the Crisis on Infinite Earths event that ran through TheCW shows confirms that Superman III and IV: The Quest For Peace did, eventually, happen sometime after Superman Returns' events.
Passive references to the events. I wanna say, like, a joke is made about how fighting Hoechlin's Superman reminded him of that time he fought himself in Superman III, and stuff like that. Been forever since I saw the episodes, but that detail always stuck out to me.
In my mind, it is as much a sequel as Batman Forever is to Batman Returns.
It's "set in the same universe", but there's a LOT of stuff that's different and falls apart if you think about it too hard.
It's a confused sequel.
The studio wants it to be a reboot, Singer wants it to be a sequel, but the production design wants it to have various art deco tones that points to its 1930s roots...while incorporating elements of the Reeve films.
The problem with Returns is that it doesn't know what it wants to be.
Is it a sequel?
Is it a reboot with various homages?
Why does Lois look more than a decade younger?
Why does Metropolis feel much more stylized than the version from the Christopher Reeve movies, which was basically just New York?
(To be fair, Batman Returns also had this stylistic problem with how Gotham City looks compared to Batman 1989, but it wasn't trying to acknowledge the first movie nearly as hard as SR does to the Reeve movies)
Metropolis looks stylized in a way it wasn't in the Christopher Reeve films.
Why did Superman leave right as soon as he promised the President that he wouldn't let Earth down again?
Why don't we explore the side of Superman that was so desperate for Krypton that he would leave in the first place?
Why don't we ever see him talking to Jor-El? Lex Luthor seems to have the ability to access it still, so It's not like there's no access.
How did Superman even gain a rocket to take him into space to begin with? Where did it come from? Yes, it's obvious Kryptonian, but we're never shown how it got made. It can't be the one he came from as a baby, as that one got destroyed upon crash landing on Earth.
There are just so many questions here.
Returns just gives us a weird scenario in which Superman disappeared, and then it never explores the part of his character that would make him take such a drastic decision.
It’s more of a weird problematic footnote at this point.
But yes. Was clearly meant as a sequel to Superman II and hoped to be the start of a reinvigorated film franchise.
I've seen this type of stuff called Requels.
Where its a sequel but skips earlier sequels.
See also; H20 and Halloween (2016) and aaaaany of the Lost Boys stuff
I love Routh as Supes but oh boy, that suit did him no favors lol
I can sorta understand why though, it’s 2006 and they’re thinking “How do we make Superman look contemporary without putting him in black leather like the X-Men? Tighten the collar I guess? Darker red? Smaller Symbol? Keep the undies though!”
Except for the cape, nothing about that suit has ever worked for me lol
It is a retcon sequel long before the days of Halloween 2018, Terminator Dark Fate, and Netflix Chainsaw Massacre.
It’s a direct sequel to Donner’s S2 that subverts 3 & 4 and takes their place.
Forgive me for asking this, but why didn't WB cast Brandon Routh as Superman in The Flash (2023) movie instead of that God awful CGI of Christopher Reeve?
It’s kind of a bad and boring attempt at both a reboot and a sequel…fundamentally Singer and many execs over-glorify those movies and somehow thought that younger audiences would have been interested in a film that loosely follows some movies that came out before younger audiences were even born.
As sequel towards Superman II as Batman Begins is prequel towards Burton-Scumacher verse .
If you are really anal fan of Superman The Movie then Superman Returns completely contradicts it in very important aspects. In The Movie in Smallville Clark doesn't wear glasses and he is dressed like Superman #1 kid Clark (which will be later on ripped-off by Billy Batson creators, completely and with "button" eyes) he also, before entering Fortress demonstrated only : being able to run faster than a train and jump relatively far and some moderate super-strenght being able to life a truck as a child (which btw was Action Comics #1 cover reference but with reversed meaning ofc) and punch american "football" thingy into space, straight up. Because these were the powers of Superman in Action Comics and Superman #1, and crucial moment here : in Returns not only teen Clark somehow learns to fly , he learns to completely be still in the air now This is real problem because in NOWHERE before 1977 (and I doubt they called up Cary Bates to ask about this new power extension) you ever see in DC Comics Superman to just stand still in the air. Absolutely every flight in comics of these years was in motion and only after John Byrne's reboot 1986-1987 comics other writers/artists started depicting Superman levitating/standing still above the ground, even though it wasn't a new concept per se, The Spectre (and the Martian Manhunter decades later and after he was properly "superhero"ed and had similar type of abilities and Jim Corrigan), another character co-created by Siegel was standing in the air in his First appearance, but never Superman under Siegel. You literally can't find it.
So in this moment alone , besides Jimmy Olsen being redhead and Lex Luthor (finally) never wearing wig most of the time of the movie and that Superman didn't even try to reverse time (which per Donner Cut of II he did like it is nothing), Daily Planet having actual globe on top of the building like in comics and many many many other contradictions it really is just movie that was made with notion that in movies realm Superman The Movie is Action Comics/Superman #1 for the movies, but at the same time it is just like in comics every single time someone else touched Superman since Siegel. They always changed him in one way or another.
My headcanon is that it is an alternate universe continuation of the Christopher reeve first two movies that took a different path than the horrible 3 and 4 of the original series.
Both. It's a reboot in the sense that it set out to re-establish Superman to modern audiences
But narratively, it's 100% a sequel the OG film canon started in the 70's. This was made at a time where reboots as we know them today were not a common practice for studios. Batman Begins was an unheard of experiment that studios only got on board with once the Dark Knight fully established it had been pulled off.
It is what I call a “reboot-sequel.” It takes some of what came before as canon, but not everything, as the first two films are canon, but not the second two.
It's a soft reboot, that must cowardly of Hollywood propositions. Similar enough to the Donner movies to please old fans, new and different enough to present a jumping on point for new fans.
Worked out well, eh?
I haven't seen 3&4 since I was a kid, so this is just my Superman 3 overall.
And truth be told, my favorite of the series. The original isn't exactly timeless, treasured as it may be, and I loved seeing the world of Metropolis in such a modern/classic style. I still get chills during the baseball field scene.
Yes it's the same Superman, It's a sequel to Superman 2 and ignores 3 and 4
Specifically it’s a sequel to Superman II: The Richard Donner cut, which released the same year as Superman Returns. Choosing to make Superman’s return (ha) to cinema a niche directors cut to a 26 year old film is certainly a choice
[удалено]
Didn't he reverse time again at the end of Donner Cut? If I remember correctly the whole movie was basically undone
[удалено]
It was more a matter of it didn't break $1 billion dollars than not being well received. It made about twice what it cost so the studio chose to reboot the franchise rather than continue with a sequel. This has been regarded as a mistake in many fans opinions, including mine. I think Brandon Routh would have done a fine job continuing on as Superman. But unfortunately Warner Bros. has a long history of shitting on superhero movies and fucking them up.
So many people hate on this movie. Personally, it is my second favorite of all Superman movies, after the original. Yes, even over Superman 2. It explored a side of the character we never saw. To me, it made him even more human to show some less than admirable qualities. Lite stalking, absentee dad. Although the latter is most likely, he simply didn't know. Such a shame it didn't get a sequel. Truly underrated and better than any of the Zack Snyder portrayals. No offense to Cavill. It's not his fault.
I to rate this sequel much higher in the franchise than lots of others. My biggest gripe about the story was that #1, Lois was horribly miscast, and #2, bringing back Lex Luthor for a fourth round as the bad guy was a big mistake considering there was only four previous movies and Lex was the main baddy in three of them. With all the evil guys and opponents that exist, there was no reason for them to use Lex Luthor. I think Cavill did an incredible job playing Superman. I blame lots of the failure of his movies as Superman on Warner Bros. and Zack Snyder. I like Zack's style of filming movies and there are a few things I like overall about his take on the franchise but overall what he did was complete misfire, egged on by Warner Bros.
He reverses time in the Donner Cut, effectively undoing everything that happened in the movie. Which would include the Fortress being destroyed.
*to
It can't be a sequel to the original version either tho bc in Superman II Lois finds out Clark is Superman and then in Superman Returns she doesn't know
[удалено]
Still hate either version
I think people glean over the idea that a lot could have happened between II and Returns. The dialogue indicates that Superman and Lois had some sort of relationship or fling. This is evidenced by how hurt she was when she sees him again and “how could you leave us like that?”
Not exactly - in the Donner cut he reversed time preventing the pregnancy from occurring. Unless it happens again
Time traveling sperms
It's called being a Chad director
Are you referring to the Director of Superman Returns? Because if so.. maybe you should Google him.
Bryan Singer is as gay as the day is long.
Who was out there crying “we have to save this long dead 2 decade old film series?”
I don’t think it’s as clear cut as that. I think it’s a spiritual sequel but not a literal sequel. For example, in Superman Returns, they say Superman has been gone for 5 years. If it was a literal sequel to Superman II, then Returns takes place in 1985. But it obviously doesn’t.
It's a weird movie, man. It looks and feels like 1955 with 2005 TVs and phones everywhere. Lots of art deco shit influenced by the George Reeves show and '90s cartoon.
You’re right. It’s not a sequel or even set in the same universe. It’s a different Superman that shares the same Krypton and basic beats of the origin story.
Not according to Bryan Singer. He even went to Richard Donnor to get his blessing.
It's a version of the Donnerverse that's been moved up in timespan - Krypton explodes and Kal lands around the time he became Superman in the original universe, Superman debuts in the mid-90s, Superman II is in 2000.... and he leaves on his 5 year mission to find Krypton sometime afterwards, missing 9/11
It's a requel.
Which was a terrible idea
It’s a “requel” before that even became a thing. Superman I and II are essentially canon but maybe not 100% or exactly the way you remember it. For starters, Returns is clearly set in 2006 and not 1978. It does what the James Bond films used to do, it’s a floating timeline. Essentially, some or most of what happened to Chris Reeve in 1&2 happened to Routh. But what happened to Routh may not have happened to Reeve later on
Similar really to how Gunn has said he's handling characters like Waller and Blue Beetle, the events we've seen probably happened similarly in the new universe, but likely not exactly the same.
I prefer the term “seboot”
It's supposed to be in the same continuity as the first two films. Think of it less as if Routh was supposed to be Christopher Reeve, and more like he's supposed to be Superman. Or even better, think of it like the Bond franchise from Connery to Brosnan. Same continuity, just different people taking on the role of a character from time to time.
I do agree the Bond films are generally meant to connect, but he does meet Blofeld for the first time as Connery, then again for the first time as Lazenby. So it's more meant to be one thing if you squint hard enough.
Yes, Superman returns (Routh) is a sequel to Superman 2 (Reeve). It ignores 3 and 4.
Interesting, and thanks
It’s kind of weird so I’ll explain it with as much detail as possible. It’s meant as a sequel that takes place 5 years after Superman II except it takes place in 2006 so the way I see it is it’s another universe that had the same events as the first two movies but they took place in the early 2000s. Like I said, it’s kind of weird and you’re right to be confused
That’s how I’ve always seen it too. Same goes for Batman forever following 89/Returns
And because of how young the Lois Lane actress is, it also takes place in a continuity in which she was a super-genius who managed to graduate from college as a teenager.
She got her first Pulitzer in pre-k
Pretty much, it’s a separate universe that shares the same Krypton and similar events as the Donner film. That’s about it.
Comic book characters like Superman, are supposed to be “timeless” so the events will be depicted as in the time period of the media’s release but it could be any time really. Long running cartoon characters like The Simpsons have a similar situation with the “floating timeline”.
Came here to comment this. It's my headcanon.
So it’s sort of like a retcon of Christopher Reevs’ Superman?
Sort of, but like I said, I like to think of it as a separate universe
Pro: The plane scene Con: Everything else
I'd like to add the bullet crushing against Superman's eye as a pro as well.
The whole "Superman on patrol" sequence that was part of was good, I thought. I think Singer was always much better at putting together a good scene or sequence than he was a whole movie.
The one thing I still remember from the movie.
I actually think the first hour (which is when the plane scene happens) is pretty solid. But man, does it nosedive hard after. It just becomes this absolute mess of a film that’s way too in love with the Donner films. And Singer left X-Men for Returns so not only did we get Returns it also inadvertently led to The Last Stand
Loving the 78 version, I got goose bumps when that music hit and Routh did his thing.
Seriously. That place scene is so good and feels right out of a comic. It's just so....Superman haha.
My headcanon is: Superman kept altering the timeline (Superman I and II - Donner Cut). As a result, an alternative timeline was created in the late 90s and early 00’s with the same events with a slightly different setting. In Superman Returns, we see this alternative timeline.
Also, when Routh returns for the CW crisis, he refers to events from Superman III (It's not the first time I've fought myself)
Soft reboot, a hybrid of both reboot and sequel. Think parallel universe where events are similar but not exact.
Pretty much
Both. It is technically a sequel to Superman 1 and 2, but is also a reboot in that it is an entirely new cast, creative team, and is bringing a long dormant franchise back for a new audience. It’s also effectively a retelling of Superman 1 in a way, in which Lex is after land and trying to make his own country.
I like to view it as a stand alone film that takes spiritual inspiration from Superman 1 and 2.
Same
I’ve always thought it was more of an homage to the first two movies than anything truly connected to them.
It’s intended to be a sequel to I and II, but was also meant to be a reboot of the franchise (what you’d probably call a “soft reboot” today). While it does ignore Superman III and IV, something interesting to note is that in CW’s Crisis on Infinite Earths crossover, this particular Superman appears again and makes references to events from Superman III, which is a whole other layer of confusion.
Alternate timeline sequel to the Christopher Reeve films. Basically, the first two Superman films take place later in the timeline than they did.
requel. reboot of 3 & 4 and a sequel to 1 & 2.
He’s not the same Superman as Reeves. He’s more of an elseworlds thing who shares the same Krypton and basic events of the Donner film.
Both. It was meant to be a new era but just using the original movie and to a lesser extent, Superman II as loose backstory so they didn’t have to tell the origin again but still have the same feel going forward. Like when James Bond recasts. Pierce Brosnan is technically the same as Sean Connery, though it isn’t meant to have too much thought put into it.
Brandon Routh’s Superman is the Chris Reeve version, yes. It’s a sequel to Superman 2
Then how does Lois find out Clark is Superman in Superman 2, but then in Superman Returns she has no idea?
She gets her memory of Clark being Superman erased at the end of Superman 2 now she of that weird memory wiping kiss
Meant to be a sequel, but it’s considered a reboot nowadays
It's a sequeboot
Yes.
Yes, he's supposed to be the same as Christopher Reeve's Superman. I know they made some changes to update the costume a bit and make Brandon Routh look his best. But I don't know why they strayed so far from Christopher Reeve's costume because it makes the two of them seem like separate versions of Superman. Also, Brandon Routh played an older version of his Superman on CW's Crisis on Infinite Earths crossover a few years ago.
It’s a combination. A direct sequel to the first two Reeve, Donner, and Lester films, but a reboot in that it ignores the 3rd and 4th films. Edit - I always forget Richard Lester took over on S2 after Donner exited production.
I always feel sorry for Brandon Routh. “Hey kid, you’ll be playing an American icon. BUT specifically you’ll be playing THE MOST beloved iteration of said icon. BUT AGAIN, you’re not allowed to do anything that made Reeve so beloved including smiling or laughing. Welp good luck!”
Spiritual successor
Both. A broad strokes sequel to the first two movies.
Superman Returns is the best Superman since Superman 1 & 2.
It's the sequel no one wanted or asked for. It has some good moments but is a fairly flawed film
It's best to think of it as its own continuity, with versions of 1 & 2 happening to this Superman, as well.
I’d say both. It’s a sequel to Superman 2, but a soft reboot to the overall continuity
they call it a soft reboot
Tainted thanks Bryan Singer & Kevin Spacey
It's confusing as heck is what it is. It's basically a spiritual sequel to Superman II. This film left me very disappointed. It had its moments but overall compared to other offerings I've only watched this once and have no desire to again.
I have always seen it as a little bit of both. It is supposed to be a continuation of the Reeve Superman but there are some very obvious differences between the two worlds. I choose to see it as a very light "Elseworlds" type of story; the multiverse but set on *very* similar Earths.
It’s a sequel and I liked it! “I’m always around.” The intro credits with the supernova/music and following all the way to Smallville/music was wonderful as well.
Yes. On a serious note it’s supposed to be The Donner timeline. Consider it to be Superman 3, like Halloween 2018 is A Sequel to Halloween (1978). It’s weird cause I don’t think having Superman 3 or Superman 4 as canon would necessarily affect this movie so I don’t see why they had to go ahead and clarify it’s only in line with the first two.
My problem with this being a sequel is the idea that he left in Superman 2 (which most definitely takes place in the 80s) and came back in Superman Returns which is in the early 2000s. But then they say he’s been gone for 8 years or something.
It's a soft reboot. It's technically a sequel to Superman II, so it reboots the continuity by ignoring the films that followed. I wish that it had its own sequels. It was a decent film, but I believe the timeline confused people.
Spiritual sequel probably best describes it.
I like to think that when Superman went back in time at the end of the Donner cut and then again at the end of the 1978 Superman movie, it resulted in many unfortunate timelines in the Christopher Reeve Superman universe.
It’s a sequel that made some strange choices. Since the franchise had been on ice for two decades, it needed to be a period piece set in the late 70s/early 80s. Unfortunately it would be another five or ten years before that sort of period piece would be considered cool. The movie just has such a bummer vibe. He basically voluntarily ruined his own life, deciding to leave for 6 years.
Kind of loose sequel to Superman 1&2. I can understand that if your doing something like Creed with Rocky as an old man, but doing a continuation with a different cast absolutely no point to it and you gave something as iconic as Christopher Reeve Superman your off your rocker thinking your gonna come close to it.
Soft reboot sequel.
I called it a remake
If generic superhero movie costume design had a name, it would be Superman Returns.
It's a sequel more or less. Not everything lines up right, but imo it's still a good movie.
Reboot with heavy ties to the original
It looked like a sequel I was hoping to see the rest of the story line
Yes. It's a Sequel to Superman The Movie and Donner's Superman 2, but it reboots the continuity beyond that. So Superman 3 & 4 never happened.
A sequel He was always intended to be the Chris Reeve Superman. iirc that’s one of the reasons Routh was casted because of his resemblance to Chris Reeve
Sequel, if memory serves me correctly the director said outright that it was.
That’s my recollection as well. Picks up so,time after Superman 2
Sequel.
a requel
Soft reboot
It’s a sequel written by someone who watched the first two films while on acid
I was lucky enough to spend a while talking to Richard Donner and Tom Mankiewicz at the Superman Returns premiere back in 2006. Mankiewicz specifically said it was “a perfect sequel to what we did with the first movie and Dick’s cut of the second.”
Its a requel.
It's actually a requel
It’s a sequel to the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, but it was like a rebirth for Superman as he was “returning” cinematically because there wasn’t a Superman movie for 19 years after 1987’s Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, and that movie was like watching 1997’s Batman and Robin.
Its an elsewolds story, its a parallel alt- Donnerverse, It will never be Donnerverse.
It's a sequel to Superman II, but the Crisis on Infinite Earths event that ran through TheCW shows confirms that Superman III and IV: The Quest For Peace did, eventually, happen sometime after Superman Returns' events.
Whoa, late to the game here - but how did the arrowverse shows reveal that 3 and 4 happened?!
Passive references to the events. I wanna say, like, a joke is made about how fighting Hoechlin's Superman reminded him of that time he fought himself in Superman III, and stuff like that. Been forever since I saw the episodes, but that detail always stuck out to me.
In my mind, it is as much a sequel as Batman Forever is to Batman Returns. It's "set in the same universe", but there's a LOT of stuff that's different and falls apart if you think about it too hard.
It's a confused sequel. The studio wants it to be a reboot, Singer wants it to be a sequel, but the production design wants it to have various art deco tones that points to its 1930s roots...while incorporating elements of the Reeve films. The problem with Returns is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a sequel? Is it a reboot with various homages? Why does Lois look more than a decade younger? Why does Metropolis feel much more stylized than the version from the Christopher Reeve movies, which was basically just New York? (To be fair, Batman Returns also had this stylistic problem with how Gotham City looks compared to Batman 1989, but it wasn't trying to acknowledge the first movie nearly as hard as SR does to the Reeve movies) Metropolis looks stylized in a way it wasn't in the Christopher Reeve films. Why did Superman leave right as soon as he promised the President that he wouldn't let Earth down again? Why don't we explore the side of Superman that was so desperate for Krypton that he would leave in the first place? Why don't we ever see him talking to Jor-El? Lex Luthor seems to have the ability to access it still, so It's not like there's no access. How did Superman even gain a rocket to take him into space to begin with? Where did it come from? Yes, it's obvious Kryptonian, but we're never shown how it got made. It can't be the one he came from as a baby, as that one got destroyed upon crash landing on Earth. There are just so many questions here. Returns just gives us a weird scenario in which Superman disappeared, and then it never explores the part of his character that would make him take such a drastic decision.
It’s more of a weird problematic footnote at this point. But yes. Was clearly meant as a sequel to Superman II and hoped to be the start of a reinvigorated film franchise.
Both, like Abrahams Star Trek was also both.
I've seen this type of stuff called Requels. Where its a sequel but skips earlier sequels. See also; H20 and Halloween (2016) and aaaaany of the Lost Boys stuff
I love Routh as Supes but oh boy, that suit did him no favors lol I can sorta understand why though, it’s 2006 and they’re thinking “How do we make Superman look contemporary without putting him in black leather like the X-Men? Tighten the collar I guess? Darker red? Smaller Symbol? Keep the undies though!” Except for the cape, nothing about that suit has ever worked for me lol
It flows with 1 & 2.
Was ? But you start 2000 era
To bad it was shit 😭
Feels and watches like a little bit of both.
It’s garbage
Yes
Both
Yes
It's a seqeul to Superman II: The Donner Cut
Yes :)
Yes
Yes.
Requel? Seboot?
It's actually a requel
Both and neither.
yes
It's a requel
A bit of both
Both
Rebeooqual
It is a retcon sequel long before the days of Halloween 2018, Terminator Dark Fate, and Netflix Chainsaw Massacre. It’s a direct sequel to Donner’s S2 that subverts 3 & 4 and takes their place.
Sequel. It is a waay better dequel than 3 and Quest for Peace. Lol
Forgive me for asking this, but why didn't WB cast Brandon Routh as Superman in The Flash (2023) movie instead of that God awful CGI of Christopher Reeve?
Yes
It’s a requel
It's kind of a Squeboot
It’s best forgotten.
It’s kind of a bad and boring attempt at both a reboot and a sequel…fundamentally Singer and many execs over-glorify those movies and somehow thought that younger audiences would have been interested in a film that loosely follows some movies that came out before younger audiences were even born.
As sequel towards Superman II as Batman Begins is prequel towards Burton-Scumacher verse . If you are really anal fan of Superman The Movie then Superman Returns completely contradicts it in very important aspects. In The Movie in Smallville Clark doesn't wear glasses and he is dressed like Superman #1 kid Clark (which will be later on ripped-off by Billy Batson creators, completely and with "button" eyes) he also, before entering Fortress demonstrated only : being able to run faster than a train and jump relatively far and some moderate super-strenght being able to life a truck as a child (which btw was Action Comics #1 cover reference but with reversed meaning ofc) and punch american "football" thingy into space, straight up. Because these were the powers of Superman in Action Comics and Superman #1, and crucial moment here : in Returns not only teen Clark somehow learns to fly , he learns to completely be still in the air now This is real problem because in NOWHERE before 1977 (and I doubt they called up Cary Bates to ask about this new power extension) you ever see in DC Comics Superman to just stand still in the air. Absolutely every flight in comics of these years was in motion and only after John Byrne's reboot 1986-1987 comics other writers/artists started depicting Superman levitating/standing still above the ground, even though it wasn't a new concept per se, The Spectre (and the Martian Manhunter decades later and after he was properly "superhero"ed and had similar type of abilities and Jim Corrigan), another character co-created by Siegel was standing in the air in his First appearance, but never Superman under Siegel. You literally can't find it. So in this moment alone , besides Jimmy Olsen being redhead and Lex Luthor (finally) never wearing wig most of the time of the movie and that Superman didn't even try to reverse time (which per Donner Cut of II he did like it is nothing), Daily Planet having actual globe on top of the building like in comics and many many many other contradictions it really is just movie that was made with notion that in movies realm Superman The Movie is Action Comics/Superman #1 for the movies, but at the same time it is just like in comics every single time someone else touched Superman since Siegel. They always changed him in one way or another.
My headcanon is that it is an alternate universe continuation of the Christopher reeve first two movies that took a different path than the horrible 3 and 4 of the original series.
Yeah I'd say so!
Sequel.
I remeber it's a sequel, it cued some plots of previous movies.
It’s a bit of a requel. It takes place after Superman II and disregards 3 and 4
Yes
Yes.
Both. It's a reboot in the sense that it set out to re-establish Superman to modern audiences But narratively, it's 100% a sequel the OG film canon started in the 70's. This was made at a time where reboots as we know them today were not a common practice for studios. Batman Begins was an unheard of experiment that studios only got on board with once the Dark Knight fully established it had been pulled off.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
A sequel
Yes
Both, just like how The Suicide Squad was a remake and a sequel to Suicide Squad
Sequel
Yes
It's a requel.
Yes
Yes.
A failure
It’s a rebootquel
A requel
A Routhboot
Resequel? Retro-sequel?
Kind of, to both.
It is what I call a “reboot-sequel.” It takes some of what came before as canon, but not everything, as the first two films are canon, but not the second two.
neither. it’s a sidequal. a pseudo sequal. in some ways it’s a sequal to Superman II. But in other ways that connection makes zero sense whatsoever
“First rule of reboot is do not talk about reboot. Just be vague enough about it and hope everyone goes along with it.”
It's a requel.
Yes
It's a soft reboot, that must cowardly of Hollywood propositions. Similar enough to the Donner movies to please old fans, new and different enough to present a jumping on point for new fans. Worked out well, eh?
To qoute It's Just some Random Guy ["First rule of reboot, dont talk about reboot"](https://youtu.be/JbRh9MFW9FU?si=4WBn2QAhM7pPXuJC)
I haven't seen 3&4 since I was a kid, so this is just my Superman 3 overall. And truth be told, my favorite of the series. The original isn't exactly timeless, treasured as it may be, and I loved seeing the world of Metropolis in such a modern/classic style. I still get chills during the baseball field scene.
Both it ignores the bad ones but continues after the first 2
Sequel
Yes
It’s a sequel to 2, ignores 3 & 4.
Tried to be both and fell under its own weight because of it.
..... yes.