Do you consider Brandon Routh's Supeman to be the same as Chris Reeve?

[superduperman]

Superman Returns is supposed to be a soft "sequel" to Superman 1 and 2. Do you consider them to be the same universe or do you consider it to be a separate universe?

[Celgress]

No, but I also don't care so I voted that way. I've never been a big fan of live-action Sups, beyond his formative years on Smallville. I much prefer comic books Sups or animated Sups to live-action Sups.

[manwhohaseverything]

Obviously no, since it ain't donner or remotely connected.Then again donner got kicked out.So...it's basically comics and that makes it a yes. It's a fanfic continuation of donner movies.Similar to how comics does things..

[kingaliencracker]

I say no. I view Superman Returns as a bad homage to the Donnerverse, but not actually set in that universe.

However, I have no qualms with with those that feel differently since technically Batman Forever and Batman & Robin are set in the Burtonverse.

[Jon Clark]

I know it is supposed to be some sort of continuation but between the lack of explanation of just how they fit and the much more dour feel of the movie overall it just ain't Chris Reeve's Superman.

Though having seen Brandon in the CW Arrowverse Crisis I wouldn't mind seeing him as Superman again. The problem wasn't him, it was the script and direction.

[Kuwagaton]

No, but I also don't care so I voted that way. I've never been a big fan of live-action Sups, beyond his formative years on Smallville. I much prefer comic books Sups or animated Sups to live-action Sups.

I have never watched more than three episodes of Smallville, even. Non comic Superman is such a footnote to me.

But then I really liked Superman III. So this divergent timeline of Returns is something I consider separate.

[DochaDocha]

Coincidentally, yesterday I came across a diagram I had written about this topic. Here's the gist of the diagram:

Chronologically, up through Superman I, Reeve and Routh have the same history.

Somewhere in Superman II, their paths diverge. Routh Superman lives something similar to Superman II, but not exactly identical. Most notably different, Reeve's Superman amnesia-kissed Lois and didn't get her pregnant. Routh Superman didn't wipe Lois' memory and got her prego.

Superman III and IV are uniquely Reeve's history. Routh didn't live it.

Routh's Superman goes from his alternate version of Superman II to Superman Returns. Routh also has a split post-Returns with at least two paths. There's an unknown series of events that has never been portrayed in media, and then there's the Routh that appeared in the Arrowverse. This is another way of saying that Superman Returns is canonical to the Arrowverse Routh, but the Arrowverse Routh is not canon to Superman Returns.

[The Frog Bros]

Coincidentally, yesterday I came across a diagram I had written about this topic. Here's the gist of the diagram:

Chronologically, up through Superman I, Reeve and Routh have the same history.

Somewhere in Superman II, their paths diverge. Routh Superman lives something similar to Superman II, but not exactly identical. Most notably different, Reeve's Superman amnesia-kissed Lois and didn't get her pregnant. Routh Superman didn't wipe Lois' memory and got her prego.

Superman III and IV are uniquely Reeve's history. Routh didn't live it.

Routh's Superman goes from his alternate version of Superman II to Superman Returns. Routh also has a split post-Returns with at least two paths. There's an unknown series of events that has never been portrayed in media, and then there's the Routh that appeared in the Arrowverse. This is another way of saying that Superman Returns is canonical to the Arrowverse Routh, but the Arrowverse Routh is not canon to Superman Returns.

Doc Brown would be proud.

[bat39]

Well, yes and no.

Routh's Superman is definitely Donner-adjacent in a sense. But tonally, it does feel like a relatively darker and more 'serious' take on the material - a sort of modern quasi-sequel/reimagining of Donner's Superman. Superman and Lois having a kid, Lois dealing with her abandonment by Superman, Clark feeling the weight of his double-life and his inability to have a real relationship with Lois, the sheer vindictiveness and brutality of Lex Luthor...all of it doesn't feel like it belongs in Donner or Lester's Superman world, no matter how much there is a superficial resemblance.

From a continuity-perspective, I'd say that Superman: The Movie serves as a 'vague backstory' (as Bryan Singer put it) for Routh's Superman. Maybe some version of Superman II happened...but I'm increasingly leaning towards no (at least, not what we ended up seeing with either Lester or Donner's cuts). At some point, Superman sleeps with Lois and then leaves earth to find Krypton.

Routh's appearance as Superman in the Arrowverse COIE to me cements the idea of him being his own distinct version of the character (as much as Clooney's Batman is distinct from Keaton's...which is pretty much canon post the Batman '89 comic and The Flash).

I say no. I view Superman Returns as a bad homage to the Donnerverse, but not actually set in that universe.

However, I have no qualms with with those that feel differently since technically Batman Forever and Batman & Robin are set in the Burtonverse.

The way I see it, the Burton movies serve as a 'vague backstory' for the Schumacher movies the way Donner's Superman serves as one for Returns.

Coincidentally, yesterday I came across a diagram I had written about this topic. Here's the gist of the diagram:

Chronologically, up through Superman I, Reeve and Routh have the same history.

Somewhere in Superman II, their paths diverge. Routh Superman lives something similar to Superman II, but not exactly identical. Most notably different, Reeve's Superman amnesia-kissed Lois and didn't get her pregnant. Routh Superman didn't wipe Lois' memory and got her prego.

Superman III and IV are uniquely Reeve's history. Routh didn't live it.

Routh's Superman goes from his alternate version of Superman II to Superman Returns. Routh also has a split post-Returns with at least two paths. There's an unknown series of events that has never been portrayed in media, and then there's the Routh that appeared in the Arrowverse. This is another way of saying that Superman Returns is canonical to the Arrowverse Routh, but the Arrowverse Routh is not canon to Superman Returns.

I can more or less get behind this.

[manwhohaseverything]

Coincidentally, yesterday I came across a diagram I had written about this topic. Here's the gist of the diagram:

Chronologically, up through Superman I, Reeve and Routh have the same history.

Somewhere in Superman II, their paths diverge. Routh Superman lives something similar to Superman II, but not exactly identical. Most notably different, Reeve's Superman amnesia-kissed Lois and didn't get her pregnant. Routh Superman didn't wipe Lois' memory and got her prego.

Superman III and IV are uniquely Reeve's history. Routh didn't live it.

Routh's Superman goes from his alternate version of Superman II to Superman Returns. Routh also has a split post-Returns with at least two paths. There's an unknown series of events that has never been portrayed in media, and then there's the Routh that appeared in the Arrowverse. This is another way of saying that Superman Returns is canonical to the Arrowverse Routh, but the Arrowverse Routh is not canon to Superman Returns.

If he didn't memory wipe.then how come lois doesn't know clark is superman?I think memory wipe gappened.lois just got pregnent.clark left before he got to know..lois remembers sleeping with superman .bam!!continuity fixed!!

[DochaDocha]

If he didn't memory wipe.then how come lois doesn't know clark is superman?I think memory wipe gappened.lois just got pregnent.clark left before he got to know..lois remembers sleeping with superman .bam!!continuity fixed!!

I read an interview from 2006 with Singer about this topic. He simply said Lois remembers sleeping with Superman. Pretty dissatisfactory explanation, IMO. I never felt Singer really thought things out; rather, he had an idea and ran with it regardless of implications.

[manwhohaseverything]

I read an interview from 2006 with Singer about this topic. He simply said Lois remembers sleeping with Superman. Pretty dissatisfactory explanation, IMO. I never felt Singer really thought things out; rather, he had an idea and ran with it regardless of implications.

I kinda gathered it as dumb Amnesia troupe these kinda romance dramas have... in my head,lois continues to have that nagging feeling that she forgot something.Then pushed herself to remember sleeping with superman.Also,Then she comes to know about her pregnancy.She gets pissed and writes "the world doesn't beed a savior"

On a sidenote,kinda ruins lojs from a cynical city girl to some childish drama queen here.Don't get me wrong,I absolutely see lois writing that not because his boyfriend left.Lois is supposed to question everything.A savior taking away people's capacity to stand on their own two feet?yeah!lois questioning that would be a given..

[bat39]

I read an interview from 2006 with Singer about this topic. He simply said Lois remembers sleeping with Superman. Pretty dissatisfactory explanation, IMO. I never felt Singer really thought things out; rather, he had an idea and ran with it regardless of implications.

It makes sense if you simply ignore Superman II. Its worth noting that there's no explicit reference to Superman II in Returns...apart from the vague hint that Luthor may have been in the Fortress before, and the fact that Superman has slept with Lois. Both of those things could have happened under very different circumstances from what we saw in Superman II.

There are plenty of references to Superman: The Movie, from "I spent the night with Superman", to Luthor having almost killed Superman. But none to the events of Superman II specifically. I don't think General Zod, Ursa and Non are alluded to even once (which is not to say that they definitely did not attack earth either).

[DochaDocha]

It makes sense if you simply ignore Superman II. Its worth noting that there's no explicit reference to Superman II in Returns...apart from the vague hint that Luthor may have been in the Fortress before, and the fact that Superman has slept with Lois. Both of those things could have happened under very different circumstances from what we saw in Superman II.

There are plenty of references to Superman: The Movie, from "I spent the night with Superman", to Luthor having almost killed Superman. But none to the events of Superman II specifically. I don't think General Zod, Ursa and Non are alluded to even once (which is not to say that they definitely did not attack earth either).

All valid points. A lot of interviews have been taken offline since 2006, so I can't find the exact interview (I did copy/paste it on another forum 17 years ago...), so I did some digging around. The Superman Homepage had this to say in their SR Q&A:

Q: Is "Superman Returns" a sequel or not?
A: While Bryan Singer was often quoted as saying "Superman Returns" used "Superman: The Movie" and "Superman II" in a "vague history", there's no doubt that there are solid continuity ties between those earlier films and "Superman Returns". References to those earlier two films include:

Jor-El once again portrayed by actor Marlon Brando.
Superman (and Clark) re-using/referencing certain words and phrases such as "Swell"; "You know you really shouldn't smoke Miss Lane"; and the "Statistically speaking/safest way to travel" line.
Kitty remarking that Lex Luthor acts as if he's been inside the Fortress of Solitude before, which he had in "Superman II".
Richard White mentioning the "I spent the night with Superman" Daily Planet article written by Lois Lane in "Superman: The Movie".
Lois now has a child, which is obviously the result of a de-powered Man of Steel sleeping with Lois Lane in 1980's "Superman II".

Anyway, that's why I say Super Routh experienced something similar to Superman II but not exactly.

The other plot point I feel Singer didn't think out very much was that if Lois really thought Jason was Superman's kid, then boy did she rebound to Richard really quickly. But I suppose that's pretty minor in the grand scheme of things since the idea of Superman being an absentee dad for all those years was the biggest plot point of SR and its intended sequels, and that just didn't interest me at all.

[Jim Kelly]

"Superman is Superman is Superman," to paraphrase Gertrude Stein.

There is only one Superman. Imagine this as a Platonic ideal. Everyone is trying to evoke that single character. Alvin Schwartz expresses this better in AN UNLIKELY PROPHET.

So, in that sense, Brandon Routh is playing the same Superman as Christopher Reeve. As is George Reeves, Henry Cavill, Tom Welling, Dean Cain, Bud Collyer. But it's not fair to Brandon Routh to say he was playing Christopher Reeve. They are two different actors.

Yet, it seems like every movie and T.V. series, after the Christopher Reeve pictures, has exploited those in some way for their own gain.

When I watched SUPERMAN RETURNS--first day it was out and not reading any reviews, so my perception wouldn't be spoiled by what others thought--I was totally immersed in it as an homage to the Richard Donner movie. By the end I was a blubbering mass of emotions--it completely worked for me on that level.

But Brandon Routh deserves the proper respect as an actor, to be seen as an individual. There are many other movie sequels, where a completely different actor plays the character. Let's not burden those actors with so much responsibility. They aren't the ones who produced, wrote and directed the movies.

With the Arrowverse Crisis, Brandon Routh showed more of his range in the Superman role. I wish they had done a full "Kingdom Come" type mini-series featuring Routh.