Salvaging the Kent/Superman fight from Supes III is key, because that is one of the few salvagable scenes of that flick. Without having watched the deleted IV stuff, I think that's an underrated movie. Flawed (the Nuclear Man stuff is laughable), but underrated, and still possessing the spirit and heart of the Reeve films. If combined with III, it could work as part 3 of a "Reeve Trilogy."

Originally posted by: Batman Beyond
I mean, SR is clearly a sequel to those two films (any cut).

Uh, no it's not. It's far from a "sequel." It may be "inspired by", and "stolen from", but it's more of a remake/companion than anything. Aside from saying he was gone for x amount of years, it doesn't continue the stories of I and II, it just replicates elements from them and sets it in present day. It rehashes some origin story from I, and recycles the "man vs. superman" theme of II. It's all been done. It could've been more inspired by the old flicks without just redoing a lot of it.

Originally posted by: Commander Courage
You make valid arguments against Superman Returns, but at the end of the day I still think we got a quality movie. Singer being such a Donner fan is a wonderful thing, although I'll admit he takes things a bit overboard at times. When promoting the sequel as "Wrath of Khan"-esque I can only hope he doesn't plan on using Zod yet again. That definitely would be crossing the line. So yes, more orginality on Singer and his writers' parts is in order, but I think SR accomplished what it set out to do: update the Reeve Superman franchise and bring it into modern times. Now that's been done, and I don't see why SR2 can't be one of the best Superhero films of all time.

Yeah, it was decent enough overall, and not embarassing (like Batman & Robin or something). It just left a lot to be desired. I hope Singer does go more all-out with story in a follow-up. It has the potential to be great stuff.