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)

Kitty Kowalski

JeanMercier90 has made repeated edits to the credit for the Parker Poser character. I see no good reason for deviating from the standard practice of crediting actors as they are credited in the film. She may have used a different name whilst introducing herself in a formal sense, but Parker Posey is credit as "Kitty Kowalski" in the film. As I point out in my edit summary, it is technically WP:OR divine an alternative credit in this case, because there are several different spelling variants for "Katherine". If JeanMercier90 wishes to pursue his edit, then he should join the discussion here and explain why he feels the article benefits from deviating from the factual credit, and obtain a consensus for his position. Betty Logan (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You must watch too a deleted scene when Kitty emphasize Luthor her name is Katherine. I repeat as I did in your discussion page; what's your problem? JeanMercier90 (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Please address my comments directly. What is the encyclopedic value of adding an un-credited extra name and how do we verify the spelling?? It is obviously not necessary to identify the character or the actor, and given that it was deleted it seems to have very little plot relevance. Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Deleted scenes aren't even part of the work. Not appropriate for the credit. Swordofneutrality (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2024 (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)