Superman Returns

[ye5man]

That's what I mean. If only they'd have done 10 mins or so of a montage of him doing his thing and edited out Spacey in its place. Seeing him happy and knowing he's accepted by the World - and THEN realising Lois has moved on, well the contrast may have meant something.

[stargazer01]

He was also doing his thing during the bank robbery (which he seemed to have enjoyed) and when he rescued Kitty. He even smiled at her. He was charming as heck during the plane rescue, mainly when he talked to the people inside the plane (swoons). He seemed Very confident in that particular part, loved it.

Whatever, some loved it, some didn't. I LOVED it. I was one of those more casual Superman fans (never visited any type of online superman forums at all before the movie, just didn't care enough), but this film was so entertaining and moving to me that here I am. And the rest is history. To me SR made this hero more interesting, awesome and human to me. It made him more relatable and awe-inspiring at the same time. Sure, SR wasn't a really funny film, BUT it was definitely Fun for me. And I wanted more of it.

[crazy_asian_man]

That's what I mean. If only they'd have done 10 mins or so of a montage of him doing his thing and edited out Spacey in its place. Seeing him happy and knowing he's accepted by the World - and THEN realising Lois has moved on, well the contrast may have meant something.

Ahhh..... okay, FINALLY I think I get where you guys are coming from.

Singer's Superman is DEFINITELY different than Donner's Superman in that regard. He is happy and confident with his place in the world in Donner's.

In Singer's, he comes head to head with the idea that his world is shaken up forever (imo) by knowing/ realizing that if he died/ was gone forever, that the world would get over it.

In Singer's Superman realizes his mortality in many ways, and below the surface really is a sad "Christ" figure- he cannot save the world, he never will be able to, and is aware of it.

In Donner's version, Superman is existing during (relative) 'good times'--- every problem can/WILL be solved, and he's pretty calm about it and his ability to do so.

It's a choice of what kind of balance Superman should have for being a God vs. Human Being.

Donner's is definitely more optimistic and authoritative.
Singer's is a silent sufferer, to a degree.

Creatively, you could say that over time, Superman hasn't become more jaded, but has seen more of the bottle half-empty in Singer's version for the world.

At the core, Singer's version does definitely take a more 'xmen' view of the world, his Superman feels more alienated than Donner's version, in which Donner's Superman seems pretty confident and comfortable in his own shoes - no alienation at all, really... except when he loses his powers.

I love both of them, but what Singer did with SR (to me) is blend it so that it had a natural progression. The world got rougher, and Superman isn't smiling about it, but hoping it gets better as he continues as well. Becoming a parent reaffirms his hope and resolve that he HAS to be more optimistic.

I love it- I think Singer did an amazing thing and made it consistent by putting in factors in the film that would make him (understandably) less optimistic from the Donner film. But, I can now see why it could also be seen as a less powerful figure with the creative choices made.

[atp]

Aug 15, 2011 11:58:35 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Ahhh..... okay, FINALLY I think I get where you guys are coming from.

Singer's Superman is DEFINITELY different than Donner's Superman in that regard. He is happy and confident with his place in the world in Donner's.

In Singer's, he comes head to head with the idea that his world is shaken up forever (imo) by knowing/ realizing that if he died/ was gone forever, that the world would get over it.

Yes, this is exactly one of the main problems with SR.

I don't like the way he has to justify his importance. It comes across as too vain and self-promoting when he tells Lois that every day he hears people crying for a saviour.

Donner's Superman (and Lester's) just got on and did stuff. He didn't talk about how important it was and feel like he needed to receive adulation. In SR, he's trying too hard. He was practically begging Lois to interview him. Compare that with STM and how cool he was about the whole interview thing.

I love both of them, but what Singer did with SR (to me) is blend it so that it had a natural progression.

Yes, I agree this is what he was aiming for. But it wasn't a natural progression. It felt too forced and jarred too much with the Reeve movies.

I think Singer tried to cram too much into this one film, and the result is that the audience doesn't really care about why Superman feels this way.

Think about it: in the space of one single film, he discovers that krypton is destroyed and that he is the last; he finds out the world has moved on; Lois is with someone else; he loses his powers and gets beaten up; he gets stabbed with kryptonite and nearly dies; he carries a kryptonite continent and nearly dies (again) and then comes back to life. And on top of all that, he feels like a lonely alien! It's too much stuff to connect with.

Remember how STM first set the groundwork and made us care about the character, before introducing stuff like losing powers (S2) or turning evil (S3). And that's why it was so interesting.

I love it- I think Singer did an amazing thing and made it consistent by putting in factors in the film that would make him (understandably) less optimistic from the Donner film. But, I can now see why it could also be seen as a less powerful figure with the creative choices made.

It was too much, too soon. He should have reintroduced the character first in a way that people were familiar with, and then gradually bridged the gap between that and the way he is in SR.

I think it would have taken at least two movies, maybe even three, for Singer to "evolve" the character to the way he was in SR without losing the audience being invested in him.

[crazy_asian_man]

Yes, this is exactly one of the main problems with SR.

I don't like the way he has to justify his importance. It comes across as too vain and self-promoting when he tells Lois that every day he hears people crying for a saviour.

Donner's Superman (and Lester's) just got on and did stuff. He didn't talk about how important it was and feel like he needed to receive adulation. In SR, he's trying too hard. He was practically begging Lois to interview him. Compare that with STM and how cool he was about the whole interview thing.

I think we are seeing the same film- and glad to see that things are being picked up, that I wasn't sure was in short 'blip' reviews.... but we're definitely experiencing it differently- but I'm glad that we're actually getting to DETAILS on what & why there's such a big bridge between those who loved/ didn't love it.

I actually DID like that Superman felt that he had to justify coming back to the world.... he was 'guilty' of being selfish to look for survivors over taking care of earth for years- just as he was 'guilty' of depowering himself to be with Lois in SII for similarly selfish reasons.

Now, I don't want him to feel like that FOREVER, but I thought it fit for a transition- so as to NOT make him seem arrogant.

With the first interview in STM, Mank/Donner called it 'a first date', and I agree. With the Lois/Supes in SR, it's "I'm sorry I dumped you, how am I supposed to make up for it"--- thus, the begging for an interview is just about right.

HOWEVER- I will agree, after many viewings, that JUST saying, "Every day I hear them crying out for a savior"- should have been expanded at least a LITTLE bit more dialogue wise to really clarify just how badly he felt about leaving the world and coming back.

Also- while I love that he says it - it can either imply a couple of things:
#1: It IS a Christ analogy of sorts and he loves the world, and puts his own personal needs second--- most of the time, and it saddens him, but it's his life mission. (Followed by his decision to save Metropolis over Lois--- might have been enhanced if he made that decision while seeing Lois on the verge of drowning on the boat)

-or-

#2: that he's a pompous windbag who sees himself as a co-dependent savior of the world, who needs to see himself that way.

So....yeah...... I do get where you're coming from. I took it as the first answer, though I could see where it also can come off as the second.

Yes, I agree this is what he was aiming for. But it wasn't a natural progression. It felt too forced and jarred too much with the Reeve movies.

I think Singer tried to cram too much into this one film, and the result is that the audience doesn't really care about why Superman feels this way.

Think about it: in the space of one single film, he discovers that krypton is destroyed and that he is the last; he finds out the world has moved on; Lois is with someone else; he loses his powers and gets beaten up; he gets stabbed with kryptonite and nearly dies; he carries a kryptonite continent and nearly dies (again) and then comes back to life. And on top of all that, he feels like a lonely alien! It's too much stuff to connect with.

I appreciate that you saw all these things- but at the end: what might not have worked on paper, I was amazed that it DID work under Singer! It shouldn't have- but, it DID work for me- obviously not for everyone.

Remember how STM first set the groundwork and made us care about the character, before introducing stuff like losing powers (S2) or turning evil (S3). And that's why it was so interesting.

mmm..... I thought SR was like an "Empire Strikes Back"- in that, you could start from the 'middle' and either connect to the love story and the personal dilemma, or feel it was too far removed.

I DID like how STM treated it like a biopic in chronological order, but I thought SR had an ambitious job in trying to move FORWARD from the stories told by Donner- but the continuity is definitely a bit flawed, but not enough to ruin it for me.

Could it stand on its own WITHOUT STM/SII? I guess as much as SIII could stand on its own without backstory- but, I know what you're saying, but I was fine embracing the Donner origins as 'canon' for SR's origins.

It wasn't a perfect fit, (some logic questions do come up between films' continuity), as I do agree that some things shouldn't have just been assumed between films, but it wasn't enough to detract for me.

It was too much, too soon. He should have reintroduced the character first in a way that people were familiar with, and then gradually bridged the gap between that and the way he is in SR.

I don't know if that was the barrier for people who came in 'fresh' to it, that weren't giant STM/SII fans. I'll admit it could have been a barrier.

I think it would have taken at least two movies, maybe even three, for Singer to "evolve" the character to the way he was in SR without losing the audience being invested in him.

This part I disagree. I think it was necessary for Singer to put Superman in situations to make him 'down to earth enough' for people to relate to him. One way was to start his story from birth- and follow him growing up (like STM did) - another way was to put in relatable conflicts (Not being able to reconnect with someone you love but have neglected for awhile is pretty human)- but there might have been other ways to do this.

If Singer had NOT chosen Brando's footage as Jorel, and recast, we could have seen 'new' scenes with dialogue between Supes and Jorel to really cement how Supes sees himself beyond the 'savior' line and
his role - more definitively - as earth's protector.

If he's depressed to be earth's protector- end of story, then it WOULD be too dreary if that's the default. That he felt like he was looking for some sort of redemption for leaving earth & Lois & finding nothing when searching for survivors- at least gives Superman some sort of emotional goal for the story.

The 'payoff' seems to always have been that Superman discovers that he has a new type of love- for his son. The stuff with Richard I'd mentioned before is kind of funky now because the situation is a loose end that isn't really resolved, without that missing sequel- (*Either Richard White knows its not his kid & marries Lois anyways - or - he dies and it's a moot point about the reveal & secrecy and all that)

But, still- it's a fresh ending even without that loose end tied up. Definitely not typical- the payoff of Superman having a son is more than satisfying to me, as it takes the relationship of Lois/Supes to a brand new level, but not an ending that satisfies everyone, for sure, but I think I get why that wouldn't be a happy ending for a lot of people, too.

[ShogunLogan]

I've always wondered...what if Krypton was there? Would Superman simply stay there and forget about poor little Earth? Say, his parents have died and they weren't there to persuade him to return to Earth? Would that be it? Adios Superman?

He realized his depowering mistake because Zod showed up and he wasn't able to defend Earth. The only reason he realized his travelling back to Krypton mistake was because it wasn't there.

[crazy_asian_man]

I've always wondered...what if Krypton was there? Would Superman simply stay there and forget about poor little Earth? Say, his parents have died and they weren't there to persuade him to return to Earth? Would that be it? Adios Superman?

If Krypton WERE there... "Superman Returns" would be a MUCH shorter movie, then. *


((*On the plus side, you could still keep the "Superman Returns" title if they decided to make that story change at the last minute. It just would refer to him returning to Krypton, versus Earth...))

[ShogunLogan]

Just saying...it's a reflection of his character. He realized going back to Krypton was a mistake...why? If it was there, would it have been a mistake?

Or, he can return to Krypton (it is there), Brainiac shows up, Supes repels him, Brainiac finds out Supes was inhabiting Earth a while, Brainiac decides to attack Earth, Supes Returns to Earth for truth, justice, and yadda yadda.

[Jimbo]

Harris/Dougherty made Reeve a liar.

"Sorry I've been away so long. I won't let you down again."

[atp]

I am probably going to be in the minority here, but I would probably edit out all scenes with Clark's mother. Yes, the actress is good and all that, but I have two problems with the character being in the movie:

- Their farewell was handled perfectly in STM in the "Leaving Home" scene. (Plus the fact that she was dead in S3 and S4.) We don't need to see Martha again. Ever. Please.

- She comes across too much like Aunt May from Spiderman. Too much of "Your father said X" or "If your father was alive Y". Sounds like all the preachy "Your uncle this" and "Uncle Ben that" crap from Spiderman 2 and 3.

I would still add back as much footage as possible of Routh on the farm, but I would make it show him alone with his thoughts and old photos.

[crazy_asian_man]

- I am probably going to be in the minority here, but I would probably edit out all scenes with Clark's mother. Yes, the actress is good and all that, but I have two problems with the character being in the movie:

Their farewell was handled perfectly in STM in the "Leaving Home" scene. (Plus the fact that she was dead in S3 and S4.) We don't need to see Martha again. Ever. Please.

- She comes across too much like Aunt May from Spiderman. Too much of "Your father said X" or "If your father was alive Y". Sounds like all the preachy "Your uncle this" and "Uncle Ben that" crap from Spiderman 2 and 3.

I would still add back as much footage as possible of Routh on the farm, but I would make it show him alone with his thoughts and old photos.

For the comics, I don't know if it's as important for Martha to be alive. For the movies, (at least under the Donnerverse) it gave the audience a chance to see where Supes/Clark was as a character, as he can't talk to anyone else without any pretense or falsehood.
(Besides, he had enough introspection for the rest of the film. It was nice to see him actually talk to another person as 'himself'.)

The major difference between Aunt May and Ma Kent was that Aunt May was primarily (in the early books) someone that Peter constantly had to be responsible for, and added a real-world type of problem- not to mention a constant reminder of his guilt over Uncle Ben's death. (The taking away of her home in Spiderman II feels even more relatable with every other block having a home foreclosed)

Ma Kent was a reminder of not just of Pa Kent, but of the type of person he wanted to be because of his foster parents. Even though he's invulnerable in every other case, he owes more to his foster parents (even more than his 'real' parents) as to who he is.

To each his own, in a fan cut. But that's why I thought the character of Ma Kent was put to great use in SR.... and might have been used for SR 2 as well.

[atp]

Aug 18, 2011 1:53:37 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

For the movies, (at least under the Donnerverse) it gave the audience a chance to see where Supes/Clark was as a character, as he can't talk to anyone else without any pretense or falsehood.
(Besides, he had enough introspection for the rest of the film. It was nice to see him actually talk to another person as 'himself'.)

Ideally, he could have spoken to Jor-El in the fortress again. But obviously there was no appropriate Brando footage to let them have a meaningful conversation.

[stargazer01]

We actually needed more Ma Kent in the theatrical cut. Eva was great!

Saw this post along with this trailer today. I agree. And seriously, Best trailer EVER.


"Combine John Williams’ legendary Superman score, Marlon Brando’s epic (and I don’t just through that word around) speech as Jor-El, and an overwhelming sensitivity for nostalgia, and you’ll get the movie trailer that brought me to tears. I’m not even ashamed. People can complain all they want, I expected the world from this movie, and I got it."





source:
www.tumblr.com/tagged/superman-returns?before=1313225389

[crazy_asian_man]

Ideally, he could have spoken to Jor-El in the fortress again. But obviously there was no appropriate Brando footage to let them have a meaningful conversation.

I imagine in an alternate universe where Singer has a slashed budget for SR, he has to re-use the elder dialogue from SIV rather than re-use the Brando footage.

"Betrayed.... BETRAYED!! BETRAYED!!!!"


On the serious side, I thought that seeing Supes have a son and a human mother to interact with humanizes him more.

[Olly H 82]

I downloaded that new edit, im gonna watch it over the weekend hopefully.

[EvilSupes]

Finally got round to seeing Superman Returns again in I don't know how long.

I thought I'd hate it this time round and that it wouldn't have aged well among other things that are talked about. But for me, when it came to watching it again, I was actually rather impressed. Fuck the colours and the filter shit, it's what's beneath all that which counts.

There's a lot of soul and emotion in SR than I remember last time - it's very deep and has quite a few layers which I never noticed before. I actually do like the approach of how they made Superman more 'human' in dealing with similar issues people everyday deal with.

The movie does lack action, and on that basis after waiting so long for another Superman movie to come along and it not exploding into action I can understand a lot people's disappointment, however it does other things that very few comic book movies tap into. And, the final product, is much much better than many comic book movies that have gone on to have sequels.

What also surprised me about seeing this movie again is actually Routh's acting is not anywhere near as bad as I remember people were saying. His acting is absolutely perfect with the stuff he was given to do and I don't think any other actor could've done better. Bosworth also wasn't as bad as I used to think. Yes, the issues with her being too young and a little bit wooden and the script making her a bit bitchy are all still present but it could've been worse I guess. For her age though, she played the part OK. Spacey was as good as Hackman and his approach to the role gives a much more eerie presence to Luthor - I would've loved to see where he would've taken the role next if SR had a sequel, same goes with Routh.

One major thing I picked up on is the sound. Visually it isn't fantastic, being digital HD and all the filters etc, but the sound is definitely up there with some of the best sounding movies I have heard. The DTS-HD track really brings more detail to it that I never previously heard and the music is actually spot-on in how John Ottman had adapted particular themes as well as invent new ones.

This is definitely a much, much better movie than I remember and after seeing all of my blu-ray set I-IV, I feel it sits there perfectly with STM and SII, and I might even go as far as to say it is my second favourite superman movie.

This movie deserved a sequel, it really wasn't as bad as other movies that got theirs.

[Jimbo]

As time goes by, the movie feels more and more like a placeholder. It served to get the introductions out of the way so they could tell the story they wanted to tell (the sequel). It's still good for what it is, but the constant references back to the STM and the sequel hooks cause it to not stand on its own quite as well.

Abrams, on the other hand, made Trek '09, which sought to do what SR tried, as far as reintroduce everything, but make it interesting for the mainstream audience, and to give them moments to cheer and make them eager for the sequel. You could go into Trek '09 without having seen ANY Star Trek, and enjoy it for what it is. You would miss some subtext, but you wouldn't be confused by the character relationships, nor would the plot feel confusing because you're missing elements from prior stories because everything that was established in the past was being reintroduced from scratch. It brings the audience in without alienating anyone.

With Superman Returns, imagine if you had NEVER seen the original Superman movies. It would be confusing. It's the first Superman movie in 20 years, but there are already established character relationships and emotional baggage. No one is really introduced, they're just there. It's like sitting down and starting on a serialized TV show, but beginning on season 3.

With Tron Legacy, since it was 30 years since the original, they made it in such a way that you didn't have to watch the original to get everything in Legacy. I don't get that sense from SR.

[ye5man]

It's like sitting down and starting on a serialized TV show, and pretending its season 3, cos you were told to, where really its season 5.

Fixed.

[Jimbo]

Aug 19, 2011 15:35:13 GMT -5 ye5man said:

It's like sitting down and starting on a serialized TV show, and pretending its season 3, cos you were told to, where really its season 5.

Fixed.

;D

I just threw "3" out there without a thought. SR doesn't really go 'full-on sequel', but cherrypicks from STM and S2, while outright ignoring S3 and S4. It still ignores significant parts of the two movies it is supposed to follow, so it's hardly a part 3.

Trek '09 rebooted the Trek franchise while still kinda-sorta making it a sequel to the Trek universe we all know (via time travel with the Spock from the original franchise), but at least it acknowledged it by explaining the "alternate reality", in an effort to get around the differences between a 1960s TV show and that movie. SR, not so much.

[ye5man]

Trek 09 come from a series with so much baggage and like you say, they handled it brilliantly. Cracking film. Seriously need to watch it again. When my work load decreases a bit I'm taking a week off to watch loads of films.

SR decided to follow just 2 films and yes, quite disappointing. At least have courage of your convictions, Singer; don't pick and choose elements to suit your will. All or nothing.

[atp]

Aug 19, 2011 14:26:19 GMT -5 EvilSupes said:

Finally got round to seeing Superman Returns again in I don't know how long.

I thought I'd hate it this time round and that it wouldn't have aged well among other things that are talked about. But for me, when it came to watching it again, I was actually rather impressed. Fuck the colours and the filter shit, it's what's beneath all that which counts.

There's a lot of soul and emotion in SR than I remember last time - it's very deep and has quite a few layers which I never noticed before. I actually do like the approach of how they made Superman more 'human' in dealing with similar issues people everyday deal with.

The movie does lack action, and on that basis after waiting so long for another Superman movie to come along and it not exploding into action I can understand a lot people's disappointment, however it does other things that very few comic book movies tap into. And, the final product, is much much better than many comic book movies that have gone on to have sequels.

What also surprised me about seeing this movie again is actually Routh's acting is not anywhere near as bad as I remember people were saying. His acting is absolutely perfect with the stuff he was given to do and I don't think any other actor could've done better. Bosworth also wasn't as bad as I used to think. Yes, the issues with her being too young and a little bit wooden and the script making her a bit bitchy are all still present but it could've been worse I guess. For her age though, she played the part OK. Spacey was as good as Hackman and his approach to the role gives a much more eerie presence to Luthor - I would've loved to see where he would've taken the role next if SR had a sequel, same goes with Routh.

One major thing I picked up on is the sound. Visually it isn't fantastic, being digital HD and all the filters etc, but the sound is definitely up there with some of the best sounding movies I have heard. The DTS-HD track really brings more detail to it that I never previously heard and the music is actually spot-on in how John Ottman had adapted particular themes as well as invent new ones.

This is definitely a much, much better movie than I remember and after seeing all of my blu-ray set I-IV, I feel it sits there perfectly with STM and SII, and I might even go as far as to say it is my second favourite superman movie.

This movie deserved a sequel, it really wasn't as bad as other movies that got theirs.

I also watched it again recently, and was highly surprised to find that I felt very similar to what you wrote.

I had always lumped SR into the same group of genuinely worthless crap like the Star Wars prequels and Indy 4, but it really doesn't belong there.

And I agree with you, there was a lot more depth and emotion to this film. In its own way, it is a beautiful movie. It reminds me a bit of Titanic. It's just a shame that the story and editing make it almost unwatchable as a full movie.

Routh is very good. No-one will ever be as good as Christopher Reeve, but Routh was probably the next best thing. I think he looked the most like Superman in the Return to Krypton scene. There were a couple of close ups where I thought he looked like a cross between Christopher Reeve and Tom Cruise.

The most disappointing actor was Spacey IMO. For someone of his calibre, he should have been BRILLIANT as Lex, but he was actually pretty crap. I found his scenes painful to watch. Too forced and some stupid cheesy dialogue. That stupid, "K-R-R-R-R-R-Y-P-T-ONITE!" line! Ugh!

There is a lot of potential, but I don't think a fan cut can fix this movie. That's just putting a band-aid on it. Someone needs to take ALL the existing footage that was shot and spend a year re-editing it from scratch.

[atp]

Aug 19, 2011 15:07:48 GMT -5 Jimbo said:

As time goes by, the movie feels more and more like a placeholder. It served to get the introductions out of the way so they could tell the story they wanted to tell (the sequel). It's still good for what it is, but the constant references back to the STM and the sequel hooks cause it to not stand on its own quite as well.
....

With Superman Returns, imagine if you had NEVER seen the original Superman movies. It would be confusing. It's the first Superman movie in 20 years, but there are already established character relationships and emotional baggage. No one is really introduced, they're just there. It's like sitting down and starting on a serialized TV show, but beginning on season 3.

Maybe Singer was banking on the fact that today's retards audiences would be familiar with things because of Lois and Clark and/or Smallville?

[Jimbo]

It was banking on the audience being familiar enough with STM/S2 to know the character relationships, as well as a large audience being willing to pay for something Superman-related at the theater when they're seeing a Superman TV show for free.

(An audience that both knows STM and S2 but can also rationalize the gigantic plot hole of Jason's conception and Lois forgetting that Clark is Superman) Not good when the filmmakers and fans have to make excuses to themselves for the plot to make sense.

The Star Trek franchise died a slow painful death because movies and TV shows were going full swing at the same time, flooding the market and diluting the fanbase's interest with its ever-decreasing quality.

Is it any wonder than none of the subsequent Trek movies (before Trek '09) made more money than Star Trek IV, the last movie to come out before the TNG/DS9/Voyager/Enterprise era? If you want a tentpole movie, don't have any TV shows about it at the same time.

Also, Trek producers were dumb enough to release the TNG movies during the fall/winter, competing against their own TV shows. At least with the Simpsons, they released the movie between seasons.

[atp]

Aug 19, 2011 15:11:06 GMT -5 cypher85 said:

It's like sitting down and starting on a serialized TV show, but beginning at season 3

Excellent analogy

I'd offer another analogy: SR was the equivalent of rebooting the Bond series immediately with Quantum of Solace.

[ye5man]

Didn't feel like a reboot to me. Felt more of a sequel done 25 years too late

A lot of these sequels to 80s films were nicely done. Indy 4 and SR just didn't get it.

SR really ought to have been a total reboot IMO. Someone at WB should have had the balls to tell the fans they are drawing a line under the Reeve films cos too much time has passed and unlike Rocky, Indy, Die Hard, etc, Superman has to remain roughly the same age.

Might have been a bit unpopular with some but would have worked out long term IMO

Routh might be prepping for his 3rd Supey outing by now.