Talk:Superman Returns

Arrowverse

Should we mention something in this article about Routh reprising his role as Superman for the upcoming arrowverse crossover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.152.42 (talk • contribs) 20:35, September 21, 2019 (UTC)

Sam Branson

Richard Branson's son may not be notable in himself, but surely the fact that, not only does his father have a cameo which is sort of promoting one of his businesses, but even goes so far as to get his son in there too, is notable? The comment is now re-inserted with a reference.

Also as a general point, I don't like all the slightly passive-agressive comments hidden in this article which seem to say, "This is the way I want the article to be, don't you dare make any edits to it". Is that something that people do now on Wikipedia? It never used to be like that. JRawle (Talk) 23:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Jason's father

Pretending that the movie doesn't make it abundantly clear that Superman is Jason's father is just disingenuous. The piano was clearly thrown by Jason given the way it moved an Lois' shocked reaction, there's no way that was caused by the boat rocking. Additionally Superman's speech to him at the end basically confirms it. Can we please stop pretending that this isn't the case? JR226555 (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Please review MOS:PLOTINTERPRETATION. Specifically, please take onboard the part that reads "Plot summaries that rely on the work as a primary source should provide a straightforward account of the plot, free from interpretation." I had nothing to do with writing the summary that is present in the article, but it seems to me that the existing version does a better job of summarizing the plot as opposed to your edits, which added an interpretive dimension. If Superman does indeed give a speech that "confirms it" then I suggest you provide an account of that scene instead. Betty Logan (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Please stop making edits like this. As I have already explained to you, the purpose of a plot summary is to give a basic account of the plot i.e. describe what happens. The film neither confirms nor denies the biological paternity of the child, but simply implies in a handful of scenes. By using words such as "confirms" and adding explanatory notes, you are undermining the suggestive ambiguity that the film has purposefully created. The film could have removed that ambiguity by having the boy lift up a car or something, but it chose not i.e. the ambiguity is an intentional plot element, regardless of how strongly it is implied. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to interpret a film's plot for readers. Betty Logan (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no logical way to explain a non-Kryptonian shoving a whole piano across a whole room at all, much less with sufficient force to crush the player to death against a wall. A fully grown adult Olympic weight-lifter could not do that, but is there some other way to explain a fully human tween child doing so? The child's paternity is never explicitly stated because it is unambiguous even by implication. That piano scene is the payoff for the dramatic tension that has been building around him ever since his introduction, but it is also very hard to justify Kal El repeating Jor El's speech to him unless he is absolutely certain that is his own son. If it matters, Clark and Lois were briefly married during Superman II, and this film consciously maintains that same continuity right down to the movie score. That is a matter of fact, not opinion, perspective nor interpretation; tell John Williams it is distinct. ~2026-27582-94 (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Image placements

Once again AlPacito is image dumping in articles, showing complete disregard for the work and care that has gone into designing the layout of the article. It is NOT OK to just drop images into an article and ruin the alignment of the existing images with the appropriate sections. Frankly, it is is disruptive and not a positive contribution to Wikipedia. I have reached out to this editor in the past on other articles and asked him not to do this but he has ignored my requests. Once again: if you are not going to take the care to carefully integrate new images in a way that respects the existing layout then your edits are not welcome at the article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Any problem with the image? Look, I'm going to give you some friendly advice: instead of sabotaging and/or criticizing my edit, please just post the image wherever you like, and that's the end of it. Because it's very easy to sabotage and/or criticize, but contributing takes work, though it's rewarding and satisfying to do so. AlPacito (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

These articles only exist because of editors like me and other contributors who have put the time in and worked on them. The layout of the page is designed with a regard to the Manual of Style and commonsense aesthetics. Now let me give you some friendly advice: respect is a two-way street, and if you want your edits to be respected, then you must respect the work and design decisions of others. Betty Logan (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)