Talk:Superman Returns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Superman Returns article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Good article Superman Returns was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
To-do list for Superman Returns: edit · history · watch · refresh

[edit] WP:GA to do

as of: 17:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC) — Great job in the re-write. Recent edits address most - if not all - of past objections, (see below). Article needs to marinate in its gooodness for about a week to see if it remains stable. Please renominate in about a week from today. - Davodd 17:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for improvement as article strives for WP:FA

  1. The related media section needs attention. Possibly written out as prose instead of a list. OR made into an info box for quick reference. - Davodd 17:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. References needed for disputed facts (or they need excised and moved to talk page until citation issue addressed) - Davodd 17:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More

Most needing immediate help:

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

Needs deleting/rewriting/proseifying/infoboxing:

  • Related Superman Returns media
  • Remove all redundant plot information in lead in. It is not needed in that section and reads badly when going through the entire article Done.--Amadscientist 03:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Stagger all images from top to bottom as left then right, etc and separate with at least a paragraph worth of information. Images should not be one on top of the other Done.--Amadscientist 03:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Cast list needs information about each actor in context to the film (example; "= Brandon Roth was cast in the part after an audition left the Director feeling that he was the one." Only add information about the character if they are not mentioned in the plot section.
  • There needs to be a Reception or Reaction section. The Criticism and awards section would be merged or retitled. Also as it is written is somewhat sketchy. Locate reviewer quotes and list what publication specifically used the review. Newer movies should not be difficult to find reviews. Done.--Amadscientist 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Soundtrack section could be expanded, possibly written in tables with track information. per Bignole, see below.
  • There should be a single Release section in reference to the film. Soundtrack Release should be retitled just Soundtrack and DVD Release section should be merged into the single Release area. Done.--Amadscientist 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hidden messages should be removed from this article. They can be considered uncivil and are intended to stop editors from editing work in good faith. Done--Amadscientist 00:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotional Image The size of this image showing the actors and director interacting is to large for a "Fair Use Rational". If it is not re sized it may violate Wikipedia Policy on Fair Use images being low resolution.--Amadscientist 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Soundtrack information should be removed completely, and moved to its own article. You don't find such things on FA film articles. Also, there needs to be a brief synopsis in the lead, because the lead is a summary of the entire article, not just the parts we like. It doesn't need to be a detailed paragraph, just a sentence or two, probably exlain the jist of the entire movie, as some people might not want to be spoiled by reading the entire plot, yet might want to know what the story is about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
Ignore the first part, I see there is a sentence describing the film, and I thought the track listing was there with the soundtrack info still. It isn't, and it shouldn't be. We have a separate WikiProject for that stuff. Track listings don't hold encyclopedic value anyway. It's just indiscriminate information on the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Archive
Archives

Contents



[edit] Does Superman Have A Biblical Subtext?????

If it's the original story then it should go to the Superman page, not here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks your right--Wwjd333 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Superman doesn't have a specifically biblical subtext, though some comic-book scholars believe it was inspired by elements of Jewish mythology (Siegel and Shuster were both Jewish). However the film does plunder Christian elements to an enormous extent:

There are several references to Superman as a "saviour", and whether the world needs a saviour.

Jor-El is heard to say "They can be a great people, Kal-El. They wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all—their capacity for good—I have sent them you, my only son.", which clearly references the famous quote from John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he sent his only son, that whoever believed in him might be saved"

Superman has an apparent death and resurrection near the end of the film

And don't forget, right after the sacrifice that leads to his apparent death, he clearly assumes a crucifixion pose as he starts to fall back to earth.

Some state that the fact that he is stabbed in the side mirrors Jesus being stabbed in the side on the cross, though that's a bit of a stretch.

Lex Luthor states Gods are "selfish little beings that fly around in red capes"

Singer has explicitly mentioned the "messianic" nature of the character and the parallels with Christ in interviews (http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/interviews/bryansinger.html)


Effectively the ostensible omnipotence of the character allow writers to treat him as a type of modern god, and the writers of Superman Returns ran with this idea using Christian themes, in what I personally felt to be a rather ham-fisted and obvious way. However this is not an integral part of the character: other portrayals, such as Smallville and the early Man of Steel comics show him as a vulnerable and simple character.

Agreed, and this is a reason why the biblical subtext in this movie should be mentioned in the article. It's also worth noting that the NYTimes review talks explicitly about this aspect of the film, so that fact, at least, could be listed under the critical reception section.

[edit] On the Soundtrack/Complete Score...

The Complete Score listing is missing a track... there should be a source cue titled "Martha's Radio" listed after "Dying Wish Part II". The track was composed for the film by Damon Intrabartolo (who also conducted the scoring sessions) and was performed by George Doering. John Ottman briefly mentions the recording session for this piece on his website, and it's also noted in an online article at SoundtrackNet. In addition, there's also an unused alternate take for "The Daily Planet" (eventually used as the background music for the menu on disc 2 of the DVD release), also mentioned on Ottman's site. Both of these cues are unofficially available, as is the rest of the score, but virtually all of the unofficial versions of the complete score that are floating around the internet don't include these two cues. 71.107.195.48 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Something else I just noticed and forgot to add earlier is that the track "Reprise" (on Disc 2) is also in the wrong position on the list. Instead of being listed before "Fly Away", it should actually come after "End Credits", as it's the second half of the end credits music. (For anyone keeping score, in the film, the end credits finish with a replay of "Little Secrets" from Disc 1.) 71.107.195.48 20:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Reviews

Why did this movie get bad reviews? I found it was better than most movies today.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 18:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it is not what you think, it is what the professionals think. But I too remmeber it getting very positive reviews. Sittingonfence 02:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It got bad reviews partly because it was a modernized version of a classic comic tale and some people hate that. It also received criticism because of the ridiculousness of certain scenes; the complete unbelievability of Superman somehow picking up the continent of kryptonite and *nudging* it into outer space, while he himself, weighing so much less than a continent, somehow succumbs to the force of gravity, and falls to earth. Made no sense. There are other scenes that make no sense, but this one in particular ruined it for me. -Laikalynx 02:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is not be ready for GA rating

I cannot with good conscience give this a GA rating as the writing in the "plot " section is not what it should be and there are still many things that need improvement even after extensive work by myself and other editors. I hesitate to change the plot after having to remove invisibled messages that seemed very uncivil and I personally wonder if the article has a stable enough history to allow the rating.--Amadscientist 05:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

[edit] Fair use images

There is an attempt to delete images on this article by an editor. I believe although he may believe himself to be correct the images that are being deleted are of more importance to the article than any of the other images. We do not need the behind the scenes image or the image of Marlen Brando. However none of the images need to be deleted as these are minimal use and within the amount used on GA articles. Lets attempt to remain civil if at all possible. Disagreement is not in itself uncivil but some of the edit summeries defenitly have been.--Amadscientist 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We have Superman in the poster, Superman and Lois, and Brandon Routh in his Superman gear "behind the scenes", there is no reason for another Superman picture just to show him flying. It's unnecessay eye candy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Superman and there is no policy about the number of images about a subject. Fair use policy is being followed and I have agreed with other deletions just not these. If you still feel that there are too many images with Superman in them please consider deleting any of the other images. I would not object to that, but the two images in the plot section are important.--Amadscientist 23:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

One Superman image is the poster, you want me to delete that? One Superman image is a behind the scene image showing the green-screen usage in the movie (one that has real world context it is illustrating) you want me to delete that? But the two you do not want me to delete are the two images you uploaded. WP:FU criteria number 3(a) states: Minimal number of uses. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. - Since the poster shows him flying, we don't need to see it again in the plot. FU criteria #8: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. The image does not do that, because it's just a picture of him flying, which again is already shown in the poster anyhow. On that same page, in "Acceptable Images", it states: Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. Again, there is no critical commentary on his flying.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is my argumant to keep those two images or two that are similer. The fact that I uploaded them has nothing to do with my reasoning. The two images replaced two other lesser quality images. One that showed a computer image that was not the best quality and the other of Lois and Superman for the same reason.

Forget about the poster. Items in the infobox are going to be doubled. It is there for at a glance reference. The first image shows Superman flying in the classic "Fists forward " stance and shows the character as he is most thought of. The second image of Lois and Superman is important as you cannot have an article about Superman without mentioning Lois Lane. Therefore for plot, they are crucial.

The other images sre not needed and add no true context to the article. An image of the production art would be more appropriate. Showing the actors in the production section makes no sense. Although it does show the director it is less important than the two images in the plot section.

I always use the GA rated articles from other movies as examples of how an article should be done. That is encouraged to keep all related article in the same format. It goes not break fair use policy. Many FA and GA articles have far more images than this article.--Amadscientist 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Halloween is FA, only 1 image in the plot. The Boondock Saints - one image in the plot. Halloween III, Gremlins II...there are pages with 2 images in the plot and pages with 1 image in the plot. What another article does does not translate to what every article should do. What you deem as "classic 'fists forward'" is irrelevant to the article as a whole. First, there is no source for that "classic" characterization. Secondly, you are not talking about that image (which is part of the critical commentary requirement that I pointed to). The same goes for Lois and Superman. There is no critical commenatary for the reason you are saying the image needs to be there. You cannot say "this is here because," and never say that in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I have no idea what you are talking about. You feel that the image in production is more important than the images in plot. That makes no sense to me at all. I believe you understand what I was saying about the pose of the first image and the reason the article needs the images. As far as the reat of the images they are not important and are truely eye candy. The sreen shot of Brando is not what should be there but an image of the process being discussed. Same with the other prduction image. Actors do not have relavance to production.--Amadscientist 00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the images are important, because nothing there says "you need me to illustrate a point". You are wanting an image of Superman simply because the movie is about him, ok. You are wanting an image of Lois and Superman to show their romantic interest..ok. One of those kills two birds with one stone. The image of him flying in the "classic pose" is original research unless you can verify that it is "classic" and that it has relevance in the plot section. Otherwise, it's an extraneous image of Superman.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not original research as I make no mention of it in the article and it is mentioned in print elswhere, but seems unimportant to mention. Anyway I am stepping away from the Article for 24 to 48 hours as a cooldown period.--Amadscientist 00:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd like to add my $0.02 here. Under fair use criteria, a non-free image's rationale must directly correspond with context in the article. I think we can agree on this, right? That's why we don't see multiple non-free images in an article -- there's no justification beyond decoration for them. Now when it comes to choosing images for the Plot section, arguments are far too subjective. In terms of Wikipedia's policies, non-free images have to meet the fair use criteria. In terms of context, non-free images have to relate to the text somehow. The problem with images in the Plot section is that it boils down to, "I feel that this image adds more to the Plot section than yours." I could argue that there should be a picture of Lex Luthor in action, or that there should be a picture of the Kryptonian landmass. With no concentrated basis, there are hundreds of screenshots from which to choose in the film. Such selections can be seen as justified by one editor and as decoration by another, as you can see here. However, with an image like the digital recreation of Marlon Brando, all editors can see that the image corresponds with the neighboring paragraph detailing what filmmakers did. Another thing to note is that plot summaries are discouraged per #2 of WP:IINFO unless they are part of a larger topic -- they are not given credibility on a stand-alone basis, they can only exist to complement other sections. With non-free images in a complementary section, it is not direct enough to tie these images into the article for encyclopedic purposes. Sections containing real-world context work best -- since a particular screenshot has been commented upon independent of the film and independent of editors' preferences, then we objectively know that the screenshot is more notable by others. That is the rule of thumb by which editors should operate, not their own determinations. If a subjective argument has to be made at all, I find the Superman flying image to be redundant of his appearance in the poster. There's no real-world commentary about how he flies or why that screenshot is important. The other screenshot of Superman and Lois Lane may have some relevance; if filmmakers or reviewers have noted specific observations of this shot, which I find more likely than the fly-by screenshot, than it could be included. I would suggest taking a look at Dirty Dancing and Branded to Kill for better ways to incorporate screenshots. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The article could also stand to lose the Lois & Clark picture. I don't see that it satisfies WP:NFCC #8. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 07:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I got to be honest I don't know what many of you are talking about. As for minimal amount of Fair Use images that does not state what the minimum is. Also the Plot section does have text that discuss both pictures. I have seen the Project Film discussion and I see that the suggestion not to jump the gun and start deleting images has been ignored. That in itself makes me wonder about the reasoning of those using the term "Real World" importance. As for Plot section.....it is required for a film article. Much of this is opinion.....no actually all of this is opinion. I am staying away from the article for another 24 hours. As for what is stated above....again the minimal use does not mean only one image.

This movie may not be as important as Star Wars so there may be no need for as many images as there were. I didn't put them all there, I replaced two that were of low quality and one I edited to reduce it's high resolution. I will still argue that the two images are important for context of the section. As for the screen shot of Brando there are other shots and images that directly show the work that was done and not the result which is what a screen shot shows. And again the image in production does not relate to it's section enough in my mind. A production image is not an image of shooting the film but of the production work itself. There is production art and other images that would be far better. To me the arguments I am hearing are coming from all over the place and are not exactly based on the best interpretation of policy.--Amadscientist 22:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying "Superman flies to the plane" is not discussing the image. I could find a dozen images that show the same thing. We don't need visualization help to understand what flying is. A plot is not "required" by any means, but accepted as part of the idea that it provides context for all the real world information. If an image in the plot is used, then it needs to provide a reason for why it is important enough to be shown in the plot (all non-free images have to show that, regardless of location).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
First plot section is needed in all articles about films. Just continuing to say it isn't doesn't make it true but does raise some questions as to which style guide line you are giving emphasis to. As far as the quote under the image that was replaced I never liked that either. It had no true relevance as the image was computer generated and there was no mention of that. But you are picking and choosing what you except and what you delete. The image in production has no reference at all in that section yet you feel strongly that it should stay. No it really should go, using your logic. No reference in the article, no reason for it to remain. Anyway lets clear up all this crap. I will say that I use the Project Film Style Guidlines and feel that it should be the syle used for the article.--Amadscientist 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No style guideline, policy (WP:PLOT). If you want to challenge other images, fine, remove them all until more applicable ones can be found, but I'm saying that the two in the plot (in the least, one of them) do not meet WP:FU criteria. The Film Style Guideline (WP:MOSFILMS for anyone looking for it) only talks about posters, not about images in the plot. You want a guideline on images, WP:FU is your place to go.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

While I feel pretty strong about the flying image, I can live with the new image of Lois and Superman that you uploaded as the single image in the plot section if that is the consensus, which appears to be the case.--Amadscientist 03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, (WP:PLOT) referes to published works, not film articles, please don't confuse the two. You cannot have an article on a film without a proper plot section. I for one believe that many articles on film have taken the plot section way to far, like Clue (film) and believe the section should only be enough enformation to understand basicaly what the film is about and what characters there are and what is notable about the plot. No need to re-write the entire script.--Amadscientist 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A film is a published work, as WP:PLOT, is the basis behind the plot section in WP:MOSFILMS, as writing every little detail would be "indiscriminate information." Regardless, this discussion is about images, not the plot itself, which could use a bit of trimming anyway. The point was that nothing says "there has to be a plot," it's simply accepted that one would be present in a film article. But, one could write an entire film article that has no plot, but simply mentions the events of the plot as they pertain to the real world content (like discussing events that occur in the film, based on the writer's intentions that might be discussed in a "Writing" section). It isn't mandatory, but it's certainly easier to do, and read, if you are like some readers and simply come here to read about what happened in the film (which shouldn't be done in the first place, but you can't stop 'em from doing it).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually both points are incorrect. Project Film Style Guidelines states a plot section should be added. Also the example given in (WP:PLOT) state clearly "(such as fictional stories)". Referring to articles about novels and nonfiction books and if you look at those projects you will see what I mean. If they meant film articles they would have just said "including film articles". This is where I think you have gone farther than policy dictates. Project Film has templates for articles that don't have a plot section so that it will be added by someone. So yes, regardless of what this "discussion is about" it is made clear that a plot section is needed for film articles. But getting back to the image debate this is what is said about the amount of Fair use images;

(a) Minimal number of uses. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. (b) Minimal extent of use. The entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/sample length is used (especially where the original could be used for piracy). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace.

Who determines what is minimal? Consensus does. Who determines "If one will suffice"? Consensus does. This is not a hard policy as it does not set the minimal amount or state what defines when one will suffice. As an artist and a theater technician I have very set ideas about copy right and do not take it lightly but Wikipedia is very much like a news article and is not gaining financially from a fair use image. Keeping it to a minimum is exactly how it should be down but what that minimum is exactly is what will take discussion and time to determine by consensus. As I said before "Superman Returns" is not as important as other films that have more images so limiting the amount used in this article might well be a good idea. Lets just keep the discussion going on these things and take into consideration the opinions of all editors. It is after all the only way to form consensus. I still dont like that production image or the Brando image as I have stated before and have found better images to use.--Amadscientist 03:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It says on WP:FU, clearly, that all screenshots must have critical commentary, simple as that. You are picking two criteria from the 10 (which all 10 must be satisfied). Critical commentary (which is part of the "Sigificance" criteria) is established through reliable sources that discuss the scene the image is detailing. This does not equate to "Superman saves Lois from drowning" being in the plot, and thus we show an iamge of Superman saving Lois from drowning. That isn't critical commentary. If none of the images meet WP:FU, then they all should go. No reason to play favorites here. P.S. The Film style guideline says nothing about "you must have a plot section". You misunderstand mentioning for mandation. What the guideline does is explain how you should write a plot section. As for WP:PLOT, last time I checked, Superman Returns was a fictional story, so were all the films that are made about fictional topics. "Fiction" is not limited to books. Anyway, there is no point to debate the semantics of what PLOT and MOSFILM are saying, as it's off topic. You see it one way, I see it another. I have not said that we should remove plot sections, I merely suggested that they were not mandated (which they are not), just merely accepted practice.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I only showed those two parts of the Fair Use policy as those are the sections refering to what we were discussing. As for the critical commentary argument you just gave....I didn't understand your point. Also a plot section is a "standard article component of Wikipedia film articles".--Amadscientist 04:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"standard" =/= "mandatory". It means usually performed. Cast sections are standard as well, but again, not mandatory. Anyway, no reason to perpetuate an argument that is going nowhere, since I'm not saying the section should be removed (and wouldn't request one to be removed). The point of the critical commentary was exactly what I stated many times before, that unless there is some type of critical commentary for that non-free image, then it violates WP:FU, as non-free images must meet all 10 criteria on that page, not just a select few. The two things you pointed are subjective criteria, yes, and they vary from article to article, but if an article has no images on it whatsoever, you wouldn't just grab anyones you can find, they would still have to meet all the criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs) 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I get what your saying now about the critical commentary as a part of the 10 criteria for fair use but I think I still don't understand your definition of critical commentary. As for cast sections they are standard as prose not as lists although it is permited if written in a way standardized in the project guidelines. I think what is clear is that you are very critical. That isn't a bad thing. Sometimes a critical eye is needed and the discussion helps better the article. You feel the "Argument " is going nowhere. I think the discussion was needed (as does Wiki). But it may well have played out as far as it can so with that.....--Amadscientist 04:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Critical commentary for a non-free image would be commentary that discusses that scene, or that technique (if the image is illustrating a cinematography technique). The commentary is typically real world content. For instance, see the caption in the image here. The capture serves the purpose of identifying the significance of the image, which is to illustrate a visual effects technique used on the show (which is detailed even further in the text that it is adjacent to). For Marlon Brando, pretty much all that text describes the significance of the image--though I agree that one that actually shows the computer-generated model of them mapping Brando's face from the previous film would be more appropriate. If it's an image in the plot, you may find that some review(s) have discussed some kind of sexual tension, or unrequited love, between Lois and Superman in the scene on the rooftop. That provides the context necessary to justify the use of that particular copyrighted image. You may find some reasons other than the two I just mentioned, to include the Lois/Supe image. Also, when I said "the argument is going nowhere," I was referring to the side-chatter we were having about whether a plot is mandatory or simply common practice. It was going nowhere because we were both debating the semantices of what a policy and a guideline were stating, and it had nothing to do with the discussion in this section, which was about the images of this article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with just about everything you stated. I just feel that the caption under an image that states the character name and the actor credit is real world content.....in the plot section. I have seen it done in several GA and FA film articles and I myself captioned an image as simply "Tim Curry as Frank-N-Furter" in the recently GA rated article. In a plot section of some articles that is enough information. Then there is the article on Midnight movies that adds information not included in any part of the section it appears in and is far too long.--Amadscientist 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Van De Kamp is an FA article, but I wouldn't suggest an editor to use that as an example of writing about a fictional television character. Just because other articles are doing it wrong, and it was allowed, doesn't mean we should perpetuate the problem. WP:FU is clear about needing critical commentary, and saying "This is John Doe" isn't critical, it's stating the obvious and we don't need an image for that. Otherwise, we get into a "well, why doesn't so-n-so have an image in the article." The next thing you know, we have this on our hands.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok....point taken. It really only takes a small amount of reading to properly add critical commentary to captioning. So I will make changes to my articles.--Amadscientist 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References need work

There are a great deal of references in this article, but many are not considered reliable for a wiki reference and the first one I clicked on no longer exist. This needs to be addressed as well.--Amadscientist 04:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can dig some up for you. Would that work? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

From here, I found the following:

  • BROWN, David: Flight Control / StarBurst (0955-114X) n.338 , July 2006, p.40-46, English, illus / Bryan Singer talks about the background to SUPERMAN RETURNS.
  • BROWN, David: Cats & Dogs / StarBurst (0955-114X) n.338 , July 2006, p.48-51, English, illus / Parker Posey talks about her role as Kitty Kowalski in SUPERMAN RETURNS.
  • Superman Returns / Film Review (0957-1809) n.672 , July 2006, p.66-84, English, illus / A behind-the-scene account of the making of SUPERMAN RETURNS with comments from actors Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey, and director Bryan Singer.
  • FORDHAM, Joe: A Hero's Return / Cinefex n.106 , July 2006, p.70-101,138, English, illus / Detailed account of the physical, visual and digital effects employed for the making of SUPERMAN RETURNS, in particular for the flying scenes.
  • SMITH, Adam: All-American hero / Empire n.205 , July 2006, p.76-84,86,88,91, English, illus / A production history of the attempts to bring the Superman franchise back to the screen for SUPERMAN RETURNS, the maki- ng of the film and interviews with Bryan Singer, Brandon Ro- uth, Kate Bosworth and Kevin Spacey.
  • BROWN, David: Setting the Scene / StarBurst (0955-114X) n.339 , July 2006, p.54-60, English, illus / Production designer Guy Dyas talks about SUPERMAN RETURNS.
  • BROWN, David: Flying High / StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Spec. n.76 , July 2006, p.104-107, English, illus / Cast and crew talk about SUPERMAN RETURNS.
  • GRAY, Simon: Hero shots / American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.87 n.7 , July 2006, p.28-40,42-43, English, illus / Director of photography Newton Thomas Sigel describes his experiences of working on SUPERMAN RETURNS and the technical and creative challenges he faced.
  • BROWN, David: Super Script / StarBurst (0955-114X) n.337 , June 2006, p.54-60, English, illus / Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris talk about writing for SUPERMAN RETURNS.
  • BROWN, David: The Krypton Factor / StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Spec. n.75 , June 2006, p.58-62, English, illus / Gil Adler talks about making SUPERMAN RETURNS.
  • ERAMO, Stephen: Mad About The Boy / StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Spec. n.75 , June 2006, p.64-70, English, illus / Stephan Bender talks about working on SUPERMAN RETURNS.
  • BROWN, David: When Worlds Collide / StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Spec. n.75 , June 2006, p.72-78, English, illus / Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth talk about working on SUPERMAN RETURNS.
  • HAUSER, Brooke: Summer movie magic / Premiere (0894-9263) v.19 n.9 , June 2006, p.86, English, illus / Briefly details the construction of the Kent farm in SUPER- MAN RETURNS.
  • RICHARDS, Olly ed.: Popcorn: Toys defeat Superman / Empire n.204 , June 2006, p.60, English, illus / Brief discussion as to whether or not the merchandising for SUPERMAN RETURNS gives away certain plot points prior to the film's release.
  • BROWN, David: The Unusual Suspect / StarBurst (0955-114X) n.336 , May 2006, p.58-62, English, illus / Kevin Spacey talks about his role as Lex Luthor in SUPERMAN RETURNS.
  • BOND, Jeff: Anatomy lesson: Building Metropolis / Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.38 n.3 , May 2006, p.14-17, English, illus / Hollywood production designers talk about translating comic art into three dimensions for the cinema.
  • JORDAN, Sean: Passing of the Cape / Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.38 n.3 , May 2006, p.36-43,78, English, illus / Cast and crew talk about making SUPERMAN RETURNS.
  • GOLDSMITH, Jeff: Superman Returns / Creative Screenwriting (1084-8665) v.13 n.3 , May 2006, p.55-59, English, illus / Screenwriters Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris and director Bryan Singer talk about their collaboration on SUPERMAN RETURNS.
  • BROWN, David: Superman Flies Again / StarBurst (0955-114X) n.334 , March 2006, p.20-24,26, English, illus / Cast and crew talk about making SUPERMAN RETURNS, including sidebars on Christopher Reeve and Dean Cain.
  • 2006 Preview: Superman Returns / Film Review (0957-1809) n.666 , February 2006, p.44-45, English, illus / Director Bryan Singer talks about his inspiration for the long-delayed return of Superman in SUPERMAN RETURNS.
  • HEWITT, Chris: He's Back: Superman Returns / Empire n.200 , February 2006, p.72-77, English, illus / Bryan Singer discusses his experiences of working on SUPERMAN RETURNS.
  • SWANSON, Tim: Super Troopers / Premiere (0894-9263) v.19 n.5 , February 2006, p.54-60,117-118, English, illus / Report from the set of SUPERMAN RETURNS, a revival of the Superman franchise, with comments from director Bryan Singer actors Brandon Routh and Parker Posey. Plus a timeline of the Superman comics and screen adaptations.
  • Superman Returns / Film Review (0957-1809) v.Spec. n.61 , December 2005, p.196-213, English, illus / Provides a history of the casting of SUPERMAN RETURNS and of the making of TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY, a crime drama looking back at 'Superman' icon George Reeves's myste- rious death.
  • Popcorn: What the hell is this guy wearing?... / Empire n.198 , December 2005, p.68-69, English, illus / Light-hearted look at the Superman costume for SUPERMAN RETURNS, and the ways the rumoured 'curse' of Superman could affect lead actor Brandon Routh.
  • JORDAN, Sean: CFQ update: Rebirth of Kal / Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.37 n.8 , November 2005, p.4-5, English, illus / Bryan Singer talks about SUPERMAN RETURNS.
  • THOMPSON, Anne: What's next in FX? / Premiere (0894-9263) v.19 n.3 , November 2005, p.60,62,67, English, illus / KING KONG, SUPERMAN RETURNS and ZATURA all make heavy use of computer-generated special effects, digital animation and 3D
  • GEORGE, Sandy: Shooting the light fantastic / Screen International (0307-4617) n.1501 , 13 May 2005, p.15-17, English, illus / Looks at the reasons why four US films (SUPERMAN RETURNS, CHARLOTTE'S WEB, GHOST RIDER and AQUAMARINE) are shooting in Australia. Includes production details of CANDY, the latest projects on the market and new Australian talents.
  • BOND, Jeff: Tights Situations / Film Score Monthly v.10 n.3 , May 2005, p.17-19, English, illus / An interview with composer John Ottman about his working relationship with Bryan Singer and his work on the scores for the films FANTASTIC FOUR and SUPERMAN RETURNS.

Hope you can make use of some of these print sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Repeated Vandalism on this Page

Somebody, whose only ID is User:71.224.69.248, keeps vandalizing this page saying that the film "failed" at the box office, "sucked" according to many reviews, and that "Superman fans were appalled to see Superman be an irresponsible father", etc etc. Not very neutral POV. I don't want an edit war to be the end result, nor do I wish to be a nagger, but whoever you are, please stop making false edits on this page. The film was, for your information, well-received and did average at the box office, but it was not a flop. The reviews and critic reception were about 76-77% positive, and many fans enjoyed the film. Please stop doing this, or I will have to report this. User:Cluebert 9 January 2008 11:35 P.M (UTC)

[edit] Superman Returns' Box Office

For the love of God why does people insist on saying Superman Returns did "really good" at the Box Office? It did not.. Warner Bros. was indeed disappointed with the Box Office intake. If they were not than why the heck is there no script or any hard good news for the sequel? Why did the Writer's Strike delay production? Why did the Singer's writing pals "leave" the project? Why was the sequel pushed back because of Justice League? Its quite obvious Warner Bros. wanted "Spiderman" money and they got a Box Office intake just a bit more than Batman Begins.. Also if they only wanted "Batman Begins" money, why the huge budget? Its not because of the development hell that the budget was 209 million. The movie alone costs that much. I think the Wikipedia seriously needs to stop feeding people crap that "Superman Returns did great at the Box Office" and start telling the truth that it underperformed at the Box Office and disappointed Warner Bros. It did not flop, but it sure disappointed. Also, many Superman fans were very disappointed at the lack of "action" in Superman Returns, the corny plot, no supervillain, and most importantly, Superman's characteristics. Superman was an irresponsible person. He knocked up Lois right before he left to find a planet he well knew was destroyed (Jor-El told him. He would believe stupid reports instead of his own father?) and he did not say goodbye to Lois and when he comes back, he expected Lois to "wait for him?" Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.69.248 (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The third picture down

Wow the third picture down is a bit .... a bit .... er

ThisMunkey (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is a bit...what? I don't see any problems with it. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The way the man is in front of it but obscure and his jacket covers supermans leg but it blends with the mess on the floor. and it's easy to mistake for a bandy leg and spoils the picture. If it could be increased to include the anonymous persons features or make it larger so it's more clear some one is blocking the view. Apart from that the pictures are pretty good including this one but it does have that mad optical illusion. ThisMunkey (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect aircraft

I believe the aircraft he saved was not a 777 but a 757. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovietpilot (talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

This section is extremely biased and should be re-written. Words such as "crushed" and other opinionated adjectives are used liberally. 64.180.167.227 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)