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.
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
share