But I have to wonder -- could Singer, the man who created such a compelling Magneto, have given us a more interesting Luthor if he hadn't been emulating the Donner movies' lame version of the character, but had instead based it on the modern comics' corporate magnate or come up with his own original archvillain type? Would he have come up with a more satisfying Clark-Lois dynamic if he hadn't seen it as a continuation of their love affair in Superman 2? And would it have been easier to accept the new cast in their roles if the film hadn't been encouraging us to pretend they were the same people previously played by Reeve, Kidder, Hackman, et al.? All those things diminished the film for me.
I'm glad that Singer (and someone else in the production) pointed out that it wasn't a hard sequel to Superman II
. That sort of comment should make it easy to imagine it as it's own thing and not the redone third installment that so many imagine it to be. And personally, I don't like the idea that you can just ignore events in an ongoing saga anyway. In fact, I don't know why so many people would be okay with that approach. A story loses meaning and integrity when you just ignore whatever you didn't like. I'm happy to see Superman Returns
as what they say it is... a remake inspired by the Christopher Reeve movies as opposed to a "proper sequel" that ignores III