Talk:Superman Returns/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Questions

I've heard this was actually FILMED on HD film, not just converted onto an HD DVD. Is this true? Anyone know?

[edit] What about the 747 in some of the posters?

The poster can be seen at http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdlike/154767449/

It depicts a 747 with an engine on fire - which isn't a scene in the 2006 movie. Admittedly, it could just be a homage to the scene in the original Superman movie where lightning causes a plane engine fire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.60.92 (talk) 26 August 2006

If you put your mouse on the plane, it says that the person who posted that picture added the plane in himself. It was not in the orriginal poster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.151.26 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2007 PST
No, that user took the original picture of the airplane and WB licensed it for use in the poster. So what about it? I don't think it should be in the article, but I may be missing your point, o editor from last August. —Fitch 00:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article?

There is no way this can succeed as a Good Article at this point. The criteria are listed as follows:

  1. Well-written. The Plot, Sub-plot, Triva, and Connections are not well-written and are way too long and involved. There are also too many sections.
  2. Factually accurate. It does provide many references, that's good. But it is largely "Original Research" and also the subject of many edit wars (see #5).
  3. Broad in its coverage. That it is.
  4. Neutral point of view. Some people think it is, some people think it isn't.
  5. Stable. It is edited probably 50 times a day, though it may not "change significantly". It certainly changes significantly in a matter of a few days. It is also the subject of many edit wars, as can be seen by the talk page and it's archives.
  6. Images. Pretty good here.

In my opinion, it fails 3 or 4 of the 6 criteria. Why is this even being nominated now? -- Renesis13 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sequel Section

Please do not change this edit I have made. The information I have posted is factual information garnered from a site that has been used in regards to virtually every superhero article on this site. Thanks. Scarletspeed7 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If your edits have merit they will stand on their own. If they don't your appeal here won't stop people from removing them. CovenantD 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
He/She's right. If you go to superherohype you will see the new article about Singer saying the exact same thing. Though, it would be good for them to go back and find the link and cite it. Bignole 23:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Article needs to be updated:

An article in the Los Angeles Times had Alan Horn, the president of Warner Bros. Studios stating the following:

"Horn expects "Superman Returns" to eventually gross about $400 million worldwide, more than last year's hit "Batman Begins." Nonetheless, "Superman" fell at least $100 million short of his expectations.

'I thought it was a very successful movie, but I think it should have done $500 million worldwide," Horn said. "We should have had perhaps a little more action to satisfy the young male crowd.'

Still, he's betting Warner has firmly reestablished the "Superman" franchise and is planning another installment for summer 2009."

Furthermore, this article from Yahoo movies, address http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/va/20060818/115588788100.html, has WB production president Jeff Robinov stating the following:

""'Superman Returns' will be profitable for us," says Warner Bros. production president Jeff Robinov. "We would have liked it to have made more money, but it reintroduced the character in a great way and was a good launching pad for the next picture. We believe in Bryan and the franchise. Clearly, this was the most emotional and realistic superhero movie ever made.""

So, I'd mention those sources so it's clearer that a sequel is very likely despite the film's gross.

Its clear now that there's going to be a sequel to "Superman Returns". All that business about "media sources say it has to make $200 million" and "its down to 750 theaters" are pointless inclusions at this point. 208.135.167.106 23:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

I just came back to this, and reorganized the entire layout of the article to make it more logical, flowing, sequential, and readable. A lot of stuff that should be sub categories were parents and it had become a bit of a mess... The trivia and speculative stuff is absurdly long, and needs to be broken off into a child article (in a very, very bad way). If no one else feels like doing it I'll get it tomorrow. rootology (T) 09:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the Good Article Review is spot on, this article needs to be massively trimmed to remove the severe fanboy qualities. That's not going to be easy until this film ages somewhat and fanboys move on... Also, the "plot holes" section are not plot holes at all. A plot hole is "something that doesn't make sense in the context of the plot". A plot hole is not "something that is not yet explained but can have a very simple/rational explanation", "something that is ambiguous" or "something that is not yet resolved". Jeff schiller 13:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superman Returns (additional plot elements)

I forked off sub plots and unresolved stuff to Superman Returns (additional plot elements). It's just better there. rootology (T) 16:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't fork off a section into it's own page unless it can support an entire page. Those are merely sections of this article. They either should be including in this article or not at all. Bignole 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think there is enough there to support it? What if the massive trivia section were integrated with it into a superman storylines and trivia sort of article? rootology (T) 17:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There, I was bold and made up List of Superman Returns Plot Elements and Trivia integrating all the trivia and sub plot stuff. Much better, cleans up the cruft from the article, and the freed space can be now devoted to a proper Cast section. Once thats done, some massive copyediting, and I betcha we got us a FA. rootology (T) 17:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's able to support a page now, but I don't know if it's proper to have an entire page of Trivia and/or plot holes. Bignole 18:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
We can sort it out later--if its prosefied it could be a good article on it's own. I'm trying to make the page structurally more like the other recommended ones for Casablanca and Revenge of the Sith. Hows it looking? rootology (T) 18:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem's not just with the structure but how it is written. The "trivia" sections can be reinserted if a better name can be created for them (i.e. Like the Allusions to other Lore or Past Superman media) something like that. If it has a purpose than fine. Also, you have to remember that this article is way too young to be considered. ROTS has been around for awhile and had other information (i.e. Awards) that can be added to it. This movie just came out 5 weeks ago, and hasn't existed long enough to have enough info to be considered a good article, or even a main attraction. Bignole 18:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I just mean I'd like to see it beat into shape now so that when it's aged a bit it can be ready to do structurally and content wise--that way any awards, DVD info, etc., can be just plugged in. Trivia needs a heavy rewrite for the best stuff to come back, not those massive bulky lists. I figured leaving that other page List format wise is a good idea, as it allows people to work on that and good/relevant factual stuff, and allows cherry picking of the 'best' material for the main article inclusion. rootology (T) 18:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more changes

I've made massive cuts and changes to this article:

  • forked off all the crap and cruft to a side article that is better suited for it
  • tried to clean up the writing in many of the sections
  • massively re-ordering of all the categories to make more sense
  • lost the table for the Cast section to reformat per the Casablanca and Revenge of the Sith articles
  • Tried to de-fan the synopsis and expand it slightly; will probably trim that even more after (wanted to clean first)
  • production budget section was a mess, I think that's better

Most neeeding immediate help:

  • Box office results
  • Reactions (yuck)
  • Promotion of the film - do we need a zillion links there?

Might need deleting:

  • Related Superman Returns media

Anyone willing to take a crack at de-fan-izing it further, and taking out any weasle-word stuff I missed? rootology (T) 01:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi everybody!
I'm currently working on the lusophon version of this article, and came here for some ideas. I've seen the discussions, and all that stuff, and, hell, you guys did a pretty good job in the "production" section! =D
However, although not finished, our version of the "cast" section is problably what you're looking for. Descriptions of the role, the actor, all that stuff...
I'm not sure if you would have time to translate into English, but if any of you guys speaks portuguese, it could be helpful.
FlavioTerceiro 14:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Wish I spoke Portugese right about now... rootology (T) 16:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh. An user changed generally good reviews to mixed reviews. In my searchs, I couldn't find an amount of negative reviews that could justify the change. I didn't remove it - the only change i made in this article war reverting the changes made in the "cast" section - because I think it should be discussed...

Another thing is the idea of removing "Superman Returns media". I really don't see why it should be removed. The four prequels tell a lot of interesting things, like Lex's relationship with Stanford, how he spent his time in jail, his relationship with Kitty, all that stuff. In the lusophon version, I'm going to add these stuff.

I changed back those couple of POV changes that user had put in. For the related media, I'm not averse to it staying now that it's not just a list but that picture needs to be smaller, it looks like a billboard.

FlavioTerceiro 02:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

Comment of the WP:GA review as of 02:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC).

A good start on what will be a great WP:GA with a overhaul of writing style and tone. But as of this edit: [1], it fails. SUGGESTION: this article should borrow the structure and writing style of V for Vendetta (film), which is a prime example of how to write a featured article about a genre-type film.

===WP:GA Criteria used===

  • Well Written - FAILED - Choppy, poorly written and confusing prose throughout with extremely poor flow; Example from the lead:

... The screenplay is by Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris.
Following a five-year absence, Superman returns to Earth. ...

:Additionally, the entire article should be re-evaluated as to its structure to be less Superman fan-oriented and more encyclopedic. (See: Writing about fiction below)

  • Factually accurate - FAILED use of Weasel words - Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
  • Broad in coverage - PASSED
  • NPOV - FAILED; use of Weasel words - Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and
  • Stable - FAILED: Substantive changes within the past 7 days [2]. (in 41 edits)
  • Image use - FAILED. Good picture selection marred by non-encyclopedic and fan site-type captions as: "A digitally recreated Jor-El." (Who are the actors pictured?); "Superman finds a surprise from Lex Luthor." (Again, actor should be mentioned- and probably the location and its importance to the film).
  • Writing about fiction (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)): Out-of-universe perspective - FAILED. Although this article is well on its way to being a great Wikipedia article, it needs to shed the fan-based tone. It needs to be the historical document of an important film in 2006 that it should be. This includes a full explanation (as appropriate) of the Superman mythos without harming Wikipedia's mission of being a NPOV encyclopedia. Unlike the hundreds (thousands?) of Superman fan sites, we are the only site editing articles like this for serious scholars of popular culture.

Davodd 02:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The strike-outs above seem to indicate that this article may now qualify for Good Article status. While it has been hugely improved, much of the writing is still immature, unsourced, speculative, and/or unbalanced (see "Production History" section). Shouldn't this be fixed before it is nominated again? I hate to see an article be marked as "Good" with such cheesy writing still plaguing the article. -- Renesis13 23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction Section

I cut some of it out, and restructured it a bit--if nothing else the segeration of sections could help us decide what to keep or lose. What do you guys think? rootology (T) 02:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

68.81.77.76 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)You should put up the score it got on rottentomatoes.com, too, or perhaps have it replace the IMDB one, since Rotten Tomatoes monitors the reaction of the critical community. (the Cream of the Crop score, for example, is highly representative of the critical community's opinion because it tallies the number of positive and negative reviews amongst the most reputable publications in and, on occasion, out of the U.S., rather than grouping them in with blogs)

The IMDB score is a sketchier representation of what the critical community thinks because it is formulated by the tallying of the opinions of anonymous internet users, not paid movie critics.

So, if you're going to talk about the critics' reaction, use Rotten Tomatoes' score, or at least include it, because it is the more accurate of the two.

There should really be more explanations for how die hard true comic book fans feel about the film. Because although most critics were positive for the films release, Not everyone was happy with the results on this film (Even me, for the record). Most superman fans that I've heard were not exactly pleased with the story being all about the flicks staring Chris Reeve rather than a reintroducing story for newer audiences to admire the character.


Unfortunately you can never accurately gadge "fan reaction." It would be impossible to try and survey all the fans to see what they thought. This is why we use Rotten Tomatoes as a primary source, because it tends to use more than just a handful of critics, it tends to use dozens upon dozens of them. Bignole 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What about all those other Comicbook Movie Articles that mentions fans Approval or disaproval to portrayal? If I remember correctly, I seem to recall one of the articles on the batman films mentioning Fans Being Disapointed through what was shown on Film.

give me a link to those pages. It doesn't matter if they have them or not, as a rule it is too hard to measure fan reaction, because there too many fans to actually get a feel for what they think. You say you like it, I say that I don't. How can you tell me exactly what the fanbase thinks as a whole? You may know 50 people that like/dislike the film, and I may know 50 people that like/dislike the film; who's right? No one is right, because you can't say for sure which one is a better reading of the entire fan population's reaction. 03:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This I believe was the article I was thinking about for the Batman film Batman & Robin. From how it's described, it's pretty accurate if you were to ask any comicbook fans for a Major Character flawed portrayal. You can also try these,

Fantastic Four (film)

The Punisher (2004 film)

Daredevil (film)

although I am not to sure if they are accurate or not, it is still better to mention The People who are Loyal To The ComicBook Heroes that They Admire.

I didn't really notice too much "the people think", but I did notice that just about everyone of those reaction sections had no sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and requires sources. It is too hard to accurately provide sources about fan reaction, as you cannot accurately measure fan reaction other than maybe by box office performance. And that's a maybe. I'm sorry, but it isn't something that's easily measured, thus the reason why Wiki doesn't want "fan reaction" sections...because you cannot cite them. Bignole 20:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No Sources, Come On. Have you not learned by now that ALL sources are on the bottom? Articles always have sources on the bottom.

You should learn the different between citing a source and just listing an external link. Tell me a source that can accurately measure fan reaction? I'll expect a source that has measured fanbase in the hundreds of thousands. Bignole 03:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Okay! maybe you can't judge from every thousands of fans out there but the point is that there is TOO much overrated reviews on this film that theres just not enough information on how well this flick was in theaters. Which If I recall did not do great in theatres. But everthing I read online says it did Wonderfuly(please!). That is So not true. I'm not saying we should tell how fans feel anymore. All I mean to say is that there needs to be an explanation on how it was in theatres. Nathen

Who says it did great in the theaters? I was under the impression that most people acknoweldge that it didn't go that well in the US (worldwide it did just fine, but not restricted to the US). What part of this page reads as if it was some blockbusting powerhouse? Bignole 00:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The part saying that it was A Succsessful Movie and saying it had mostly Possitive reviews Nathen

Worldwide it was successful. It grossed almost 400 million worldwide, that's pretty successful on a 200 mill budget. It wasn't a "great success", but it did its job. As for the reviews, it did receive mostly positive reviews..check Rotten Tomatoes, or Movies.go.com. They both lists multiple critics, with RT listing dozens upon dozens. Bignole 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Positive reviews are the reason why I say that this film is Very Overated. Alot of those reviews have way too much support for the film. This makes it seem like it was a an awsome movie, which in actuality is no so much as being awsome.

Read all of the section. There are negative reviews in that section as well. BUT, it did receive more positive than negative, overwhelmingly more positive. That's just how it played out. We list the good with the bad, but just because there were some bad reviews doesn't mean that it was "mixed". The majority were good. I personally didn't like it, and was shocked by the number of good reviews for it. That section conforms to neutrality. Bignole 12:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw only one review by Ebert and a description about changing the phrase Truth, justice, and the american way being to just to Truth and Justice for political correctness. That's not really a lot Nathen

Ebert didn't like the movie, and gave it a negative review. NY Times and San Francisco Chronicle gave it bad reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has 235 reviews from it, and 176 of them are "fresh" (which means positive just in case you don't already know that). Unfortunately, as much as I didn't like the film, and the 56 critics counted at Rotten Tomatoes that didn't like the film, we are easily, verifiably outnumbered to those that did like the film. That is why the review section reads as it does. As for the "very successful" part, that is a quote (that needs a source btw) from the producer Alan Horn, and is in response to the topic of a sequel. This is his opinion about why he feels there will be a sequel, and does not violate a NPOV policy. Bignole 00:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I see so naturally there were just an estimated more amount of positive reviews than negative. what my main point in the beggining was that there did'nt seem to be that much implication as to it saying that it was not as successful as some people will think in actuality. The article just makes it seem like it was a brilliant masterpiece. I know a masterpice when I see one, and SR is not a masterpiece. That was why I put a few articles of other comicbook films which at least mention a detail or two about what certain fans dissapoited about. Like for example Joel Schumacher given the batman costume nipples, which angered many people because it made the costume look gay. Especialy with Robin. I'm just very surprised how this article does'nt have anything like that. Nathen

Well, others don't share that opinion. The review section is rather NPOV. It has the good reviews and the bad ones. It doesn't say the film was a success, the producer of the film said that. The fact that he thinks that is irrelevant to the tone of the article, because the rest of the article isn't quoting every Dick, Tom and Harry about how "successful" the film was. That producer's quote was in context with why "there is going to be a sequel", in his opinion. You should read the whole thing. What you are mad about is the fact that we don't have tons of "fan reaction" saying how "terrible" the movie is. Wikipedia is not deal in speculation, and citing "fan reaction" is right next to citing speculation, because you cannot accurately measure fan reaction. Sorry, that's just how it is. As for Batman and Robin, I don't monitor those pages, and when I looked at them last they were in dire need of a lot of work (but I have too little time, and too many other articles to look after to deal with those). Bignole 02:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya know I am Really Tired of You saying wikipedia is Cite Source Blah whatever! Forget Fan Reaction, Forget about that. All I'm stating is the fact that there is a lack of some information that has yet to be resolved (I trust the B&R article by the way, your just not aware on how true it is to how any fan had felt with the Bat costume subject). You've already said three times that You can't measure fan Source I KNOW THAT ALREADY. Alot of articles mention at least a hint for some other opinions especially on comic book movies. I was just a TAD BIT Surprised when I did'nt find that similarity in this article. And Please don't gimmie any more crap about wiki does not use fan crap, It's not like I care anymore about fan sources any more in that section. You JUST Don't get it do you. P.S I'VE READ THAT HOLE SECTION, MANY TIMES. Nathen

Nathen, my God, why are you getting so worked up?? Where in the article does it say or even imply that Superman Returns is any kind of masterpiece? Some people loved it and some people didn't. You obviously didn't. The fact remains that verifiable evidence indicates that most reviewers liked the movie and gave it good reviews. You can't change their opinions, no matter how much you may not agree with them. The article clearly states that not all reviews were positive and gives examples of some bad reviews by very noteworthy critics. The overall tone of the Wikipedia article is very neutral, as it should be. I happened to like the movie quite a bit. However, people that hated the movie, though they seem to be in the minority, are very vocal about it and you can view their opinions on any number of websites; this includes fan forums on places like IMDB, where the overall consensus is that most of the people who posted liked the movie, but some obviously hated it and they really want you to know it. And you might fall in that category. That doesn't mean that the article needs to be altered, because it already makes allowances for both opinions. The fact of the matter is there are more people who liked the movie. The article itself does not offer an opinion about the movie, nor does it try to hide the fact that some people didn't like it. It also doesn't make the film out to be more successful than it was, and Warner Bros. executives are quoted as saying that they expected the film to do better. However, you do the math. An overall profit of about 400 million on a film that cost about 200 million is by no means a failure. Cris Varengo 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am Not Trying to Change No Ones Opinion. Keep your opinions, I don't care who liked it or not. To answer your second question mr literal, no there is no sentence in the section that says this film is a masterpiece. I said it once and a will say one more time. I was a little surprised to see any lack of explanation on what some viewers thoughts were on some things they saw in the film including fans. BUT PLEASE stop telling me that fan base can not be measured. I Know that. But it's not the end of the world any description would say "fans were glad" or "upset about whatever." I've seen that done before, not that I care for to be put in the article since so many people are making Such a Big deal out of it.

P.S. my real name is not Nathen, It's actually Evan. Don't ask why, it was the only name Wiki could accept as a user name since nothing else would work. Nathen

[edit] Images

What do you guys think of a small additional images section at the bottom of the article, as the last section. I saw Padme_Amidala#Costumes this and thought of--perhaps 3-4 screen shots, in very small form visibly, that can be clicked on. It should fall under the banner of "fair use" but I've never seen something like this on a movie article. Thoughts? rootology (T) 07:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example

Clark Kent (Brandon Routh) meets Jason Lane (Tristan Lake Leabu).
Superman in flight.
Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey, foreground) with an alien crystal.

Yay/nay? If no objections I'll add it in later. It's covered under fair use I believe, adds to the depth of the article with visual references, and shows actual images of the film for encyclopediac value. rootology (T) 17:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but is there a way to make the gallery pics just a tad bigger. It's good to keep them small, but they are so small they are hard to make out. Bignole 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No way in gallery that I can see, only tables. Check this below... rootology (T) 19:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|180px]]
Clark Kent (Brandon Routh) meets Jason Lane (Tristan Lake Leabu). Superman in flight. Superman and Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth). Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey, foreground) with an alien crystal.
That's better (at least to me) for image size, but the gallery format is better for an article page. There has to be a way to do it, but I don't know because I'm not that familiar with HTML. Bignole
I wish, but I'm not seeing it in the docs. I'll look more... rootology (T) 19:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Answer = no. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial". Can't be done except in table form. rootology (T) 19:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh well. I must commend you on an excellent job cleaning up the article. I tried to stay away from it, because I think that too many people trying to do the same job, with different mindsets, at one time will create problems, and I'm glad that for the most part other editors are staying clear as well so that you can do what you think is best for the article, and then after it's all said and done we can all step back and see it (and if there is a need) correct any addition issues. Bignole 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's fair use policy allows the use of photos, as long as they complement the text at hand. Those stand alone photos do not meet its criteria, namely of providing information or critical commentary. Also see WP:IMAGE for suggestions on image placement and inclusion in an article. --Madchester 01:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to be difficult, but can you show me where in the fair use policy such a thing as a small gallery of images is excluded? Your specific things you mention are not found by me directly in the text of FUP. rootology (T) 01:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:FUP#Images allows the use of film screenshots for critical commentary. At the moment, those gallery images do not meet that purpose. As a stand-alone section they don't provide additional details. For example, the Marlon Brando screenshot is fine, since it provides visual commentary to the "Marlon Brando's role" section. The use of a gallery is fine for the Amidala costumes section, since the (copyright) images specifically relate to a Costumes section in the wardrobe design of her character. They allow users to compare the Star Wars designs to their real-life inspirations, which are also pictured. --Madchester 02:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale

In the screenshots used in this page, one of the fair use rationales used is:

No free or public domain images have been located for this film.

Well... not quite.

Or I'm mistaken? Because at the lusophon wikipedia, where fair use is not allowed, I'm using "free or public domain images" that "have been located for this film".

FlavioTerceiro 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review versus Reviews

There seems to be a little dispute about the proper terminology: is it "reviews" or "review". In reality, both are correct and it's really a matter of preference to which you use. "Review" just states that you are referring to all the reviews together, and "reviews" is about how the individual reviews are. Both are still the same thing, in essence. So, please come here to figure out which you would like, so that these edit wars will cease. Though, in my opinion it should be left to the person that originally wrote it. Bignole 13:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I believe it should be "review" is that "mostly positive reviews" seems to say that we somehow know for each review whether it was positive overall. With many reviews it is hard to know whether the review is overall positive or negative, and saying we know that seems to me to be POV. Saying it received "mostly positive review" implies instead that most of the content of all critical review of the movie came back positive (which is true), even if we didn't make a presumption about whether individual reviews leaned one way or the other. "Review" seems to be less POV and I did it to keep people from changing it to say "mixed" reviews which is the worst option because all movies receive "mixed" review, and it implies that it had as much bad review as it did positive. -- Renesis13 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a good reason (not taking a side, just providing a little feedback). One quick thing, so that this doesn't grow out further... POV and NPOV are not antonyms. POV, per Wikipedia's definition, isn't really Point of View, but rather Points of View. I have made this mistake myself, and I just wanted to get that out there so that we can try to correct that. It seems to be a common mispractice among editors. Anyway, sorry to digress. About the "review/reviews", do you have a proposed "better sentence structure" that could best illustrate your point. Maybe there is another way of expressing that so that the other editors could see it from your side. Just a suggestion, and the same goes to the other editors that want it the other way. Sometimes rewriting the sentence helps to get the message across a little clearer. Bignole 13:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Have just reverted this myself: "... received mostly positive review" makes no grammatical sense whatsoever. Either the film received a single review or several reviews. So, you could say "the film received a mostly positive review", but since there are blatantly many reviews out there, you would have to state which one of the many was mostly positive. Hope this clarifies things. (See grammatical number.) Chris 42 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think see what Renesis is trying to say, but it wouldn't be worded in the way that the sentence is worded right now. Right now the sentence is describing individual reviews for this film, not the view of this film as a whole. If you were trying to explain it as how many critics thought it was positive then you would use "reviews", but, if you wanted to say something like: "The overall review, by critics, of this film was mostly positive" then that's another story. In this case you are generalizing the opinion of the majority into a single voice. Bignole 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What is there now makes perfect sense to me, and is factual. The majority of critics liked it, and therefore it received mostly positive reviews. Forgive me if I'm wrong (and I apologise if I am), but I'm guessing that English is not Renesis' first language. An acceptable alternative may be: "The film received a mostly favorable critical reaction". On the other hand, if the critics' verdicts were split 50-50, then you would say "The film received mixed reviews" or "a mixed reaction". Chris 42 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know Rene's language, but my examples works for his word. The catch to that example is that you have to be able to apply the majority of critics' responses into one voice, which you can't really do, because that would take a lot of counting and would have to be precise (otherwise it kind of loses it's merit). The best thing to do is probably what is already done, which is take a generalized look at the multiples as multiples. For the most part, all the top notch critics liked the movie. It's all really in how you word it and what meaning you are trying to convey, but with Wikipedia you have to convey a meaning that any reading can understand easily, and the way it is now is probably the simpliest way to express the films reception. Bignole 16:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, English is my first language, and my mother was an English teacher so I grew up being very picky about grammar. I think you've completely missed the point and context of the argument. "Mostly positive review" does not make "no grammatical sense whatsoever." The point is to AVOID referring to "reviews" (in the individual sense). The use of the word "review" (yes, singular) is meant to refer to the combined response from all critics.
With a quick search I have found several uses identical to this case:
  • "Her first book, "Avalon Within: Inner Sovereignty and Personal Transformation Through the Avalonian Mysteries" (BookSurge, 2005), was published to positive critical review." [3]
  • "In terms of films, 1986-7 was certainly an interesting year in that both That's Life and Duet for One were released to positive critical review for Julie Andrews' work" [4]
  • "Essentially, positive critical review can’t hurt a novel’s chances" [5]
  • "Again, the novel did very well commercially, despite a lack of positive critical review" [6]
  • "It has now been performed in four countries and three different languages, receiving positive critical review." [7]
As you can see, the word "review" can be used in a meaning broader than just one review. -- Renesis13 17:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the word "critical" is er, critical in this instance. If this is what you meant, maybe the sentence should be changed to "In general, the film was released to positive critical review."? Chris 42 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because that is the exact phrase used in the quotes doesn't mean its the only way it can be used. FYI, I searched for "positive critical review" to pinpoint uses in that manner. Anyway, I don't disagree with adding "critical". I would suggest, "The film received mostly positive critical review." -- Renesis13 18:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that's an acceptable compromise.:-) Chris 42 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Great! I'm glad that we have come to an understanding, and hopefully others will see this discussion before editing. Bignole 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 14 images?

I think we could break this up into other articles...

  • The theatrical poster is good.
  • Superman should stay, but I think that the Lois Lane and Lux Luther images could go to their respecitve articles.
  • Production, original costume, and Brando images are good.
    • Speaking of which, I think we should chose which Jor-El image to pick - the one on his page currently, with the Superman logo, or the one on this page.
  • Teaser trailer poster is okay, but not necessary.
  • I do not understand the purpose of the 777 or the Young Clark images.
  • I think that Image:ActioncomicsSRsimilar.jpg and Image:Superman_as_Atlas.jpg are better off at List of Superman Returns plot elements and trivia.
  • The video game cover looks fine, but not necessary (already decorates the video game quite well).

Thoughts? Hbdragon88 00:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not fair to take out the Bosworth and Spacey images, and then having nuumerous Routh ones (main poster, posing one...) Ditch the silly stuff which does not DIRECTLY relate to the film, ie the XBox case, the comic/film comparison, and I guess having 2 posters is taking fair-use for a ride as well. Please keep [[:Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->]]. There are also images in the commons of buses/billboards, maybe you can ditch the teaser poster for one of those, solves one problem I guess.Comitmanto 09:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reactions section

I removed the following from the Reactions section. I reorganized it to read better, and the following review just sounded like it was off the back of the DVD box and it didn't really add anything to the article. I also removed the list of ratings as it didn't really sit well in the section, and the formatting is kind of poor. I don't think it's particularly suited to the article, but I am saving it here in case anyone can find a way to better incorporate it into the article. -- Renesis13 16:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard Corliss of TIME Magazine stated, "The best Hollywood movies always knew how to sneak a beguiling subtext into a crowd-pleasing story. Superman Returns is in that grand tradition. That's why it's beyond Super. It's superb." (TIME is owned by Time-Warner, Inc., the film's producer.)

[edit] External links - movie set QTVRs

I'm the person who photographed the movie-sets in Sydney. Now that I've had a bandwidth upgrade to my website, I can link directly to the all the movie-set QTVRs on my site (at 4020 Superman Returns Panoramas). Currently they are linked to a single image on the Panoramas (Denmark) VR portal.

So what's the consensus? Keep the external link as it is, or change it to a direct link to their source, my site at 4020.net?

--Nemeng 23:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


It's been four days now and no-one has balked, so I made the change.

--Nemeng 01:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images, once again

I'm not entirely sure if the Rout/Bosworth/Spacey portrait images actually add antyhing to the production history. And the plot is illustrated by two good images - one of the 777 and the other of Bosworth and Routh. Who else agrees that all three images should be shuttled off into their respective articles? Hbdragon88 21:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be good to get a picture of everyone, instead of just a single picture for each. Like Revenge of the Sith has. It wouldn't matter if their were crew members in the picture, but one picture that engrosses everyone involved (well, the most you can get in the group at least). Bignole 22:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Monaco Grand Prix Advertisements

I hope nobody minds if I added the movie's advertisement in the Monaco Grand Prix this year. Although I did read, or at least thought I read, that you guys had too many links to advertisements. I just thought that it was a notable inclusion in the article, as well as there being a free image ;-).--Skully Collins 12:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most external links removed (?)

Done unilaterally by ReyBrujo on 30th September without consultation or discussion. Is everyone okay with this?... --Nemeng 22:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's fine with me. I didn't follow the links but none of them seem incredibly important to the article. -- Renesis (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Done unilaterally by ReyBrujo on 30th September without consultation or discussion
Wow, what about Wikipedia:Be bold? =D
Well, personally i think some of then could stay, i even used some of then in the lusophon version, but in the "references" section, not in "external links" - one of the thinks Rey recommended. In "External links" should be only pages related directly to the movie, like official sites, offical myspace...
FlavioTerceiro 13:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I actually worked on the production in a small capacity, to take 360-degree panoramic photographs of the S-R sets in Sydney. A link to these was one of those erased by ReyBrujo. Is there enough interest to re-instate it?
What about other links, like to the [bluetights.net] discussion forum?, or [Guy Hendrix Dyas] (the production designer's) website?, or the [Bad Astronomy Review] which looks at all the scientific errors in the film/plot?
There is plenty of high-quality S-R related material online which is at least worth a link :?)
--Nemeng 23:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, then put them back. I mean, no one seems to object. I really don't edit around here, but in the lusophon version of this article, so...

My mind pretty much changed after I looked at some of the links you posted.

FlavioTerceiro 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box Office Results

I have a concern with the Box Office Results section. The last comment about how much Alan Horn expected the film to make and then stating that it was less then he had expected by about 100 million is contradictory to itself. This should be fixed as soon as possible. Manofthespoon 00:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superman Returns' music

Hi everybody!

First of all, sorry for my English, I haven't had much practice in the last months...

An nice sugestion to short it up the article a little bit would be creating a separate article dedicated to its music.

In pt.wikipedia, I did something similar, creating Música de Superman Returns (as you can imagine, "Superman Returns' music"), an article dedicated to the album soundtrack by John Ottman, to Sound of Superman (here, it got its own article, put there we though it would be better to concentrate everything just in one article) and to the music featured in the movie, but not included in the soundtrack. It cleaned up the article a bit and, in a proper article, the subject could be better developed.

What you guys think?

FlavioTerceiro 02:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sequel to Superman II not IV

Bryan Singer has stated in many interviews that Superman Returns uses Superman II as a vague history and does not follow the continuity set by Superman III or IV. Therefore, the "preceded by" should be Superman II. It is not a question of the Superman franchise. But of continuity, remakes do not contain a "preceded by". Batman Begins is not "preceded by Batman & Robin". This is one of many links that could be given as a source saying that Singer refers to Returns as a partial sequel to Superman II: http://www.firefox.org/watchtower/archives/8

The Filmaker 18:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


He never said it was a sequel to Superman II. He just merely said that the first two would be a "vague history", which means nothing more than "to answer the questions that Supe Returns creates please see the first two". There are too many continuity problems for it to be a "sequel". The movie is more a homage to the first two than anything. Secondly, the Superman IV shouldn't even be there because it was agreed upon that nothing would go there, because really Superman Returns is it's own movie, the start of a new franchise, not the continuation of anything (i.e. like Batman Begins). Please keep trying to put it in there. But, for intents and purposes, if Superman Returns was part of the same franchise, then Superman IV would go there, because you do not put "preceded by" in the basis of continuity but on the basis of when the films came out. Otherwise you'd have tons of films that retcon each other all the time, like the Halloween movies. Bignole 18:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, neither what Bignole or I did was vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism to see what vandalism is and is not. Since when is IMDB the center of all things truthful? Generally, IMDB is considered to be an inferior citation as anyone can submit information that is only filtered by administrators that know little about cinema in the first place. This is the same reason that we do not cite other Wikipedia articles. Finally, the IMDB page does not stand up to actual testimonial statements from the director himself. Even the Casino Royale page refers to it as following the previous Bond films, yet in the film he is shown to be gaining his 00 status (restarting the entire continuity). I am under the impression that IMDB's "follows" and "followed by" movie connections are in fact referring to the franchise as a whole, not the individual franchises. The Filmaker 00:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The following points allow Superman Returns to be said almost perfectly to be a sequel to Superman: The Movie & Superman II (a sequel to both since both those films were actually a single script by Puzo): (1) They used footage and dialogue of Marlon Brando as Jor-El from Superman: The Movie, and that same dialogue is important to the plot of Returns; (2) Jonathan Kent dies in Superman: The Movie, and is dead in Returns; (3) Martha Kent is dead in Superman III, and she is very much alive in Returns; (4) Reasons for Luthor's sentencing are not mentioned in Returns, therefore one would have to assume the reasons are the crimes Luthor commited in Superman II; (5) References are made by Perry White to Superman's suit ("Is that a new suit?") and his principles ("Does he still stand for truth, justice... all that stuff?"), harkening to the first two films; (6) The kryptonite that Luthor steals from the museum is from the same place in Ethiopia where he obtains it in Superman: The Movie; (7) In Returns, Richard White questions Lois on her article 'I Spent the Night With Superman', the article she wrote about her first interview with Superman on her balcony in Superman: The Movie (Richard was intending his question to ask whether Lois had slept with Superman that night, which she, in so many words denies; which is the truth as she doesn't sleep with Superman until Superman II); (8) Jason White - it is shown clearly that Lois and Superman sleep together in Superman II, thus conceiving Jason (though Clark kisses Lois at the end of Superman II, thus apparantly erasing her memory of events, the memories erased, as I see it, were only those relating to her knowing that Clark is Superman, not of her "time" with Superman; this would make sense since Superman loves Lois); the supposed finding of Krypton by astronomers then had to have occured right after the events of Superman II, thereby allowing the story of Superman Returns to be built from there; (9) DC Comics released a series of comics tieing the events that occur between Superman II and Returns, therefore suggesting plainly that Returns is a sequel; (10) Finally, they use the same Superman theme, the famous theme from the first films... you can't do that without stirring up emotion in the original fans who were looking for a sequel. I do believe that Singer had all intentions of making a sequel, why wouldn't he? I like how he puts it though, "a vague history". By saying that he allowed himself to be creative on his own terms.
Oh, and to Bignole, you said: "Superman Returns is it's own movie, the start of a new franchise, not the continuation of anything (i.e. like Batman Begins)" I'm curious if you've even seen Batman and Batman Begins. It is very obvious that this one is indeed a new series. There are at least two very clear points in Batman Begins that prove that. Have another look. --Bentonia School 19:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the "i.e. like Batman Begins" was meant to say that Superman Returns is like Batman Begins, not that Batman Begins was a continuation of the Batman franchise. What is being said is that it is not a direct sequel to any of the previous Superman films, hence the "vague history" line by Singer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out, there are far too many varibles in Returns to suggest that it is not a direct sequel. I've already commented on Singer's quote. Batman Begins is in no way a continuation of any sort of the original franchise, not even vaguely. It simply is a new franchise. --Bentonia School 05:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you were trying to say, but you either didn't understand what I said, or you had a typo in there. I said BB was a new series (not a new franchise, a franchise is a franchise no matter how you cut it), and I said that there wasn't any verifiable proof that SR is a direct sequel. Singer and the writers wanted to make it as a continuation fromt he first couple films, but not a direct sequel. They never explicitly say anything in the film to suggest that, they only hint around it (ex. Kitty says to Lex that he acts like he's been at the FoS before, he smirks but then turns to Jor-El as if it's "the first time". We won't get into the fact that there's a 20 year jump in the timeline). We can look at all the homages and in-jokes that are there, but we cannot write up an article based on our observations, that falls into this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was a typo. Sorry, about that. I meant to say, "Yes, Batman Begins is in no way..." Agreeing with you there. As far as I see it, "continuation" is a "sequel". I believe that Singer wanted to make a sequel while bringing his own to the series. The "vague history" line is having too much read into it. There are simply too many aspects about Returns - that are not homages - that suggest that it is a sequel. I will leave it at this, however. I won't insist that it be completely changed in the article; I think the article itself says in the introduction - in a its own "vague" way - that Returns is a sequel. --Bentonia School 06:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the point of this section, and many other archived ones, was that people kept wanting to put "Superman II" in the "preceded by" section of the infobox. Well, if you contend that it's part of that series of films, then it would have to go after "Superman IV", because the "preceded by" is used chronologically of when they are released, not where they may or may not fall in the continuity.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Regarding release, of course Returns was preceded by The Quest for Peace. In continuity, it's not. My apologies, I guess I didn't fully absorp what was being argued here. Anyway, I think the article does well enough to show that Returns was released after The Quest for Peace, and that the story of Returns is a follow up on Superman: The Movie and Superman II. --Bentonia School 14:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD covers

What is the point of having two DVD covers in the article (let alone one)? Judging from above, several other images have been removed to fit in line with fair-use requirements, but surely DVD covers (two, which are not really that different from the poster) are not really that notable/important? Reelusa89 11:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't really assume that we need either, but two is definitely too much. I know they are used to illustrate the differences in the two DVDs, but a lot of films have different images for the different versions. Bignole 13:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually if we want to acknowledge to the readers of the article that there are 2 DVD editions of the movie(one single disc issue and the other a two-disc set containing the bonus disc),then we definately should add both cover arts so the reader will understand the difference. Nadirali 07:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As far as I know, Bryan Singer is still signed for the sequel

Regardless of what a persistent vandal would have you believe, Bryan Singer will be helming the sequel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.49.119.123 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Nolan & Raimi Weigh In -- and Warner's Reaction May Surprise You

"Yup, you heard me correctly," an anonymous Warner executive assured us, Tuesday. "Singer is out -- Raimi and Nolan are in. Their proposed Returns sequel is stunning; richer and more interesting than the arcs Dougherty and Harris had been turning in. All I'm going to say is that Warner has the rights to a few DC characters, not just Superman, and with the CW's plans for the Smallville episode 'Bruce' going forward, not to mention the nearly concurrent reboots of two founding comic book franchises, a 'mutual sequel' seems the most interesting option. Watch IMDb: you can expect Big Blue to wind up right there with another big guy in the synopsis for 'Dark Knight'. Not for a while yet... but trust me." --Hutchingson Oberth, AP Wire, Dec 22 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.137.153.128 (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but until a NAMED Warner executive says that Bryan Singer is out, we should keep it that he's in. Unnamed sources are never reliable - it's pure rumor at this point. SkittlzAnKomboz 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The plot needs a rewrite

If someone doesn't so mind, I shall be rewriting the plot tomorrow unless anyone objects. As it is it just starts out of universe before going in, feeling incoherent. Wiki-newbie 15:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Mistakes?

What's with this section? I don't even need to play the "It's a movie" card on this one-- that isn't even a space shuttle. The movie specifically describes it as being of a new design. Not even a nitpicker could pick this nit, becuase there's no nit to pick. It's not a space shuttle, the section should be removed. Thoughts? AltonBrownFTW 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. How else would one describe this vehicle? It can accurately be described as a shuttle. It's function is clearly to go into space. What else would you describe it as? Unless I'm mistaken "space shuttle" isn't a brand name. I doubt it's a registered trademark of Nasa, I'm pretty sure it's just a description of what the thing is. It's also a pretty accurate description of what the thing in Superman Returns is. I don't know what else you're going to call it, but since this issue for some reason seems to irritate you, I'll re-edit my re-edit of the plot with a more ambiguous description. I'll also look up "space shuttle" and get back to you with what the Wikipedia definition is of "space shuttle". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Varengo71 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
Watched the film again last night. They clearly refer to the vehicle several times as a "space shuttle" or simply "the shuttle".Cris Varengo 22:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is obviously a shuttle and the film refers to the entire event as a "shuttle launch". AltonBrownFTW was right - no nit to pick whatsoever. --Bentonia School 19:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] specifications and highlight worth mentioning

There are two things missing in the article: 1)It mentions that the movie was never released in Bahrain,Kuwait or Qatar.What does this mean?From what I read,it clearly indicates that there never was a relase of the movie in those countries.If the article is trying to say that it never came out in theatres,that's different.But never released clearly means that there never was a theatrical nor DVD release.If there wasn't a release in either theatres nor home format,then I think the person who wrote that should correct or specify it.

2)There is hardly a mention of Jason White being Superman's son,which is probably the highlight of this film.Even if he isn't Superman's son,as many argue,at least we should mention the possibility as this is something totally new in the Superman movies. Nadirali 07:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't said in the film that he is, so saying that he is would be original research. The plot states the facts: Jason throws a piano, Luthor asks who his father is, and Superman recites the same passage his father did to him to Jason. Bignole 14:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Nadirali still has a good point that the mention isn't prominent enough. Can we find a way to discuss this more without it being OR? (Like what critics have said, or sites discussing the trilogyseries, or quotes from the writers/producers/directors?)-- Renesis (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it isn't a true trilogy, but I'm not sure what else can be said. The point is that they don't actually say he is Supe's son. We have the piano (which is rather obvious) and then we have tons of ambiguous stuff before and after that tries to hide it again. The real problem lies in the fact that we don't want to point to lots of tiny details in the film that suggest it one way or the other, because the plot will start to grow again. I think that if you can get a quote from Singer saying that "Jason is Superman's son", than we can literally just put that in the plot and add the citation after it. This way no one can say one thing about it, because we'll have a quote from Singer saying so. Bignole 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to say trilogy, sorry :) What I am saying is that even though we don't know that is the case, there are many more people besides Wikipedia editors out there who think it is the case. We could discuss these speculations if we can find third-party sources that talk about it. There have to be some, right? -- Renesis (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Even if a critic says, "Jason is Superman's son", he's just using an educated guess. I could have sworn though that I remember Singer talking about Jason, and "how much fun" they are going to have with him in the next film. The problem lies in that it isn't an "opinionated" subject, like a review would be, but a black and white subject whose answer lies with the writers and director. I know that there are tons of people out there that believe he is, and ones that believe he isn't, but it's a lot of conjecture. Any third party would have to be a party that either wrote or directed it, because they are the ones who actually know the truth. I mean, if we say "Jason is Superman's son," and then in the sequel Singer "explains" everything that happened in a manner that says Jason is really Richard's son and it was all a coincedence, than we allowed original research to act like fact. Granted, this could still happen even if Singer says he is Supe's son, but we'd still have him on record saying that it was and later we could acknowledge a "retcon" on his part in that area. Bignole 22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but you are talking about stating it as a fact. If a critic actually said "Jason is Superman's son", then we can definitely say that there has been speculation that Jason is Superman's son with that source as a reference. I'm not saying we state it as fact, just that many people think this to be the case (or whatever we can back up with evidence). -- Renesis (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well a critic saying it would be like saying "fans were outraged by the film," you cannot accurately measure such a broad topic. What I see is that we'd take the word of a few and proclaim it as more than it can actually be measured. Maybe, just maybe, if enough information, verifiable information, can be found to substantiate a "contraversy" (not a bad thing) over Jason's heritage, we might be able to add it as a subsection. This wouldn't be a detailing of what he does, but critics, employees to the film, actually discussing Jason's heritage one way or the other. The problem is trying to measure "opinion" on something. If someone says "Richard Pryor made Superman III the best of the series", can we actually add that in there on the page? Even if a critic said it, it would merely go into the "reception" section, and not be one of those major points of the page. This is because you cannot actually measure that. Bignole 23:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to gauge actually acceptance of the idea, we merely need to know whether it exists. We do know that discussion of the idea exists, we just need to find evidence of it. Not everything critics or reviewers say is limited to the reception section. -- Renesis (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
If we do it that way, then I'm forseeing A LOT of citations tacked on to the end of it so that we can prove it is a discussion that doesn't ONLY exist in fan forums. If we can do that, ok. Bignole 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said it should be mentioned that "Jason is Superman's son."I merely stated that the possibility (which would be difficult for anyone not to notice)of Jason being Superman's son is what should be mentioned.Not just giving points like Jason throwing the piano.But no even if I were to mention "Superman is Jason's father",it wouldn't really be original research.Even if I didn't see the film,I could still mention it through providing a link for the film's script or reading the novel.It did mention somewhere that the novel never mentions Superman giving that "poem" or whatever you may call it.Obviously the person who wrote that would have to read the novel to mention it. Regardless of wheather the boy is Superman's son,the possibility' is still there,which is enough for the it to be highlighted.Nadirali 23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I gather, the novel almost explicitly states that Richard is the father, and the "piano incident" never took place. Lois killed Brutus by dropping a bookshelf on his head. Just saying "Jason might be Superman's son", without citation, would be original research, because you are interpreting events in the film. It's introducing speculation without proof. Watching the film, anyone can draw any number of conclusions. Proving a script is the actual script would be hard enough. Direct quotes from people is the best way to cite information. Ok, a good example would be A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. This film drew criticism (from fans) about some apparent homoerotic themes throughout the film. Just saying "fans thought..." would not suffice, but if you read the article you'll see that the issue was discussed with the Director. This makes it reliable information, and notable information, because even the Director, who states that it wasn't his intention, admits that it is there now that he looks at it. It went from fan speculation to a speculation concurred by the Director. This is why I say "find quotes from Singer" to help substantiate the claims, otherwise they are merely "speculation", and anyone can speculate anything they want and that doesn't mean we should include it. Bignole 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christ images

Shouldn't there be something, anywhere in this article, about the recurring comparatory images between Superman and Jesus? 24.165.122.145 01:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Perceived connections between Kal-El and Jesus (among other religious figures--I've seen him compared to Moses almost as often) are inherent in most of the Superman mythos, not just this film, and is covered in the main Superman article and in Cultural influences on Superman. -- Pennyforth 23:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. His position when falling down after "throwing away" the island, his death, and the discovery of his empty bed are dead give aways, along with the whole "saviour" idea and the Jor-el sending his only son to earth to save mankind. This should definitly be in the article.

Please see the new tag I added to the "Reeve references" as it applies to this situation as well. Without direct input from the writer or director, or a reliable source making note of these "allusions" then it's considered original research.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, many people make sacrifices in their own lives to help others. Christ, although he preached this message, never used violence. I don't think comparisons between comic book characters and Christ are meaningful. Though i do think this page should mention that his powers were increased infinitely. His only weakness is Krypton, yet he can now lift many cubic miles of it and acheive gravitational escape velocity. I suspect this was done to re-establish his superiority over other characters whose abilities have been expanded in recent films.(Jschager 17:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Links to the Reeve films

I've started a section (within the spoiler tags) indicating specific and confirmed references to the Reeve films. Are there any that I missed? 23skidoo 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music section

The music needs to be split to it's own article. That article can handle both the soundtrack and the unused music. There can be a paragraph of prose detailing the release of the soundtrack and the lack of music encorporated from the film's score. If there were reviews of the soundtrack, a couple would be good to have.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  01:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing is I've said this four months ago... At October 23, I posted - see #Superman Returns' music above...
At the lusophon wikipedia we have already done this, check Música de Superman Returns for some ideas, and, of course, our version of the article.
FlavioTerceiro 23:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the long list of music isn't what this article is widely sought out for. (Jschager 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] End of Plot Summary

This has probably already been stated, but I've noticed the end of the summary is not the end of the movie. Since we have the "spoiler" warning up, shouldn't the end of the movie be written in? I was specifically thinking of the scene where Clark returns to Lois' son as it was not clear in the movie whether Clark was giving to the son more powers, or whether he was claiming the boy to be his own. I looked here for clarification, but couldn't find it in the article. ~Gatorgirl623~ 23:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because it isn't clear in the film. Wikipedia doesn't make assumptions, er..it shouldn't, as that would be considered original research. It states in the plot that he returns and recites a speech that Jor-El recited to him. Other than that we can't insert something that might be or might not be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Gatorgirl623, I suggest visiting the Superman Homepage. There is a message board where people can discuss aspects of everything Superman. There is a specific section on the message board for Superman Returns. I'm sure you can bring it up there and start a discussion. Unlike many online boards, most of the users at the Superman Homepage are quite open minded and rarely does anyone resort to flaming. I've spent many a fine conversation there about Superman. http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php --Bentonia School 04:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)