Norrin Radd wrote:
"Not a direct sequel but Brandon Routh should get another shot"
I don't see how this even makes sense. I mean, it kind of has to be a direct sequel in this case. If you have the same actor brought back...playing the title role...you can't just ignore what happened in the previous movie and you can't contradict it. That would just confuse audiences all to hell and they would have a right to be. For instance, you can't get rid of the kid; he was practically the main plot point of Returns.
To quote Mr. Bale again: What don't you F-ing understand? LOL!! That never gets old...:-)
It's Hollywood. Anything can happen.
The kid, frankly, sucked...it's a dead-end plot device. The only option for his character is death. Or death of Superman and the kid replaces him (which would be...stupid). Superman shouldn't have a sidekick...which is another lame way to utilize the character.
Get rid of the kid.
Kate Bosworth was boring and had NO (zip. zero. NADA!) chemistry with Routh...NOR did she possess any of the spunk and fun of Margot Kidder.
Additionally, she bore very little resemblence to the Lois Lane that was PREDOMINANTLY (not the weird little aberations -- like the Lois that married Clark Kent) was depicted in the Superman comics. And yes! I do believe the films should bear more than just a passing tie to the comics.
Otherwise, one might as well invent his own damned superhero and call him something else!
Why is this so difficult or understand or offensive to those who happen to have a different view of how the next film should unfold?