Superman Returns--Lois remembers ... ? ... and other problems
Ken from Chicago
"Yes, but what great portions--and presentation."
So many problems with the writing, but lets begin with the biggest:
What does Lois remember?
She gets knocked up by Superman (does she even know his given name, Kal-El?)
and he leaves for five years without saying goodbye and she's ticked off
like every woman throughout history who has been abruptly abandoned by the
father of their unborn baby.
The problem is LOIS DOESN'T REMEMBER HAVING SEX WITH SUPERMAN--or does she?
Would have been nice if the movie had a flashback of HER memory of the
events of SUPERMAN II. For a movie that supposed to pick up from SUPERMAN II
would have been nice for SUPERMAN RETURNS to deal with the core of the
movie: Clark and Lois.
But wait, it's worse.
Was Lois never going to tell Superman he was a dad if he hadn't been
comatose? Now that he knows, is it possible he might reveal he's Clark Kent,
since they have a kid together? He can trust her to raise his kid but not
keep his secret identity? I thought SMALLVILLE made Clark act like a total
jerk--especially relative to Lex Luthor--with Lana Lang, but it's got
nothing on SUPERMAN RETURNS having Superman act like a jerk with Lois Lane.
Speaking of jerks and Lex Luthor, you'd think he'd learn to STOP trusting
women who aren't ruthlessly cold-bloodedly vicious and heartless as he, nor
share his Machievellian ambitious vision. At least his henchMEN weren't as
bumbling as Otis, and at least shared the lump of coal Luthor had for a
heart. Also, for all his ranting about having advanced alien technology,
maybe he would have thought about growing some BEFORE taking on the leading
superpower in the world--or anyone with nuclear weapons. Sure, he had
kryptonite, but that won't do jack against nerve gas, nukes or even plain
conventional bombs (to say nothing of the more exotic "daisy cutters"). Bank
robbers had more fire power than the "greatest criminal mind in the world!".
Maybe that explains why after launching not one but TWO nuclear weapons on
US soil and collaborating with an alien takeover of the US of A, and the
rest of the world, Lex is freed merely because ONE of the many witnesses
against him is absent. Clearly September 10th thinking back then.
Speaking of thinking, what is Perry thinking in having the DAILY PLANET
"only" cover Superman--like apparently "every other newspaper" was doing?
Wouldn't he at least want a FRESH angle that wasn't being mirrored by
everyone else, by going after the blackout story? And what major paper in a
major metropolitan center does NOT have COLOR photos? Sad to see BLACK AND
WHITE photos from the color cell phone pictures taken.
How come the local authorities didn't seem to be investigating? At the very
least the electrical utilities shoulda had some workers out inspecting the
area. If Lois can track down the source third hand, the electrical company
would have had first hand knowledge of EXACTLY how power grid went down.
That's what happened here in Chicago in the '90s when he major blackouts and
Mayor Daley crack the whip on ComEd. That's why Illinois was in a better
condition when the power went out in the northeastern region of the US a few
years ago, forcing millions of New Yorkers to walk home. Even so, in the
Northeast the source of the blackout was tracked. Btw, what the frell was
Luthor waiting for at the docks? He had his precious crystals, why was he
just waiting around instead of getting his plan into motion?
I've said it a thousand times before and say again:
In good science fiction, the rules of science can be broken, but the rules
of fiction can not.
Plot, characterization, themes, the basic requirements of fictional
storytelling do not change.
-- Ken from Chicago (who believes a man can fly, and that's when the movie
at its best--just had trouble with the folks on the ground)
P.S. What's with the super boy? Anyone gonna clue him in? Lex figures it out
and leaves him alone. Lois waits forever to ask for his help getting out of
the kitchen. Even so he does jack squat until she gets tired and sits down.
In fact for most of the movie he sits and stares, like Ebert says, some kind
of beta version of Damien.
P.P.S. "It's not easy for me to live my life being who I am keeping
secrets." In the trailer but not the movie.
MrBud...@aol.com
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> The problem is LOIS DOESN'T REMEMBER HAVING SEX WITH SUPERMAN--or does she?
Don't know which is worse - that he's faster than a speeding bullet, or
more powerful than a locomotive. Maybe Lois suffered amnesia because of
the experience.
Duggy
No. It was the kiss at the end of Superman II that erased her memory
of the sex they had in that film.
===
= DUG.
===
Derek Janssen
> "The food here is awful."
> "Yes, but what great portions--and presentation."
>
> So many problems with the writing, but lets begin with the biggest:
>
> What does Lois remember?
>
> Would have been nice if the movie had a flashback of HER memory of the
> events of SUPERMAN II. For a movie that supposed to pick up from SUPERMAN II
> would have been nice for SUPERMAN RETURNS to deal with the core of the
> movie: Clark and Lois.
...Uh, didn't Reeve-Clark arrange for Lois to lose her memory of the
entire events of S2, near the last scene of the original?
Derek Janssen (here's a guy who could *literally* suck the oxygen out of
the room)
eja...@comcast.net
Duggy
> ...Uh, didn't Reeve-Clark arrange for Lois to lose her memory of the
> entire events of S2, near the last scene of the original?
Exactly.
===
= DUG.
===
badth...@yahoo.com
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> "The food here is awful."
> "Yes, but what great portions--and presentation."
>
> So many problems with the writing, but lets begin with the biggest:
>
> What does Lois remember?
>
> She gets knocked up by Superman (does she even know his given name, Kal-El?)
> and he leaves for five years without saying goodbye and she's ticked off
> like every woman throughout history who has been abruptly abandoned by the
> father of their unborn baby.
>
> The problem is LOIS DOESN'T REMEMBER HAVING SEX WITH SUPERMAN--or does she?
No, she doesn't. Or she shouldn't. Her memory was wiped at the end of
Superman II, so she shouldn't really know that's Superman's kid she's
had---until he pushed the piano across the room. Then she should have
had a sudden eruption of memories caused by the event. And a new
reason to be pissed, quite frankly. The story is just shoddy all over.
But what stood out for me is that Lois must have hooked up with Perry's
nephew pretty much the next day for him to believe it's his son.
ftsen...@aol.com
lot of that when seeing a movie of this type, but I guess you didn't
suspend your disbelief, since you're posting this thread.
A bigger SoD would buying Lois Lane actress Kate Bosworth (who was only
22 during filming) playing a character old enough to have a 5-year old
son, and intelligent and experienced enough to win a Pulitzer Prize,
yet stupid enough to walk right onto the villain's boat and get caught.
Do people think Kate looked mature enough for the Lois Lane character
(who I'm guessing was supposed to be around 32, or 10 years older than
Kate was)? Just curious.
-Frank
Ken from Chicago
<badth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151828170.2...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "The food here is awful."
>> "Yes, but what great portions--and presentation."
>>
>> So many problems with the writing, but lets begin with the biggest:
>>
>> What does Lois remember?
>>
>> She gets knocked up by Superman (does she even know his given name,
>> Kal-El?)
>> and he leaves for five years without saying goodbye and she's ticked off
>> like every woman throughout history who has been abruptly abandoned by
>> the
>> father of their unborn baby.
>>
>> The problem is LOIS DOESN'T REMEMBER HAVING SEX WITH SUPERMAN--or does
>> she?
>
> No, she doesn't. Or she shouldn't. Her memory was wiped at the end of
> Superman II, so she shouldn't really know that's Superman's kid she's
Precisely, so she's been knocked up and doesn't even remember who it would
have been? It's not like she's some, to quote Nelly Furtado, promiscuous
girl, who sleeps around, if anything, she's such a workaholic she barely had
time for a personal life--yet she's pregnant? Someone would have had to slip
her rohypnol or back in the '70s a "mickey"--in addition to "slipping" her
something else--for her not to remember.
> had---until he pushed the piano across the room. Then she should have
> had a sudden eruption of memories caused by the event. And a new
> reason to be pissed, quite frankly. The story is just shoddy all over.
>
> But what stood out for me is that Lois must have hooked up with Perry's
> nephew pretty much the next day for him to believe it's his son.
Which is totally out of character for Lois (at least as portrayed in
SUPERMAN II). She's too much of a workaholic. She's nearly forgot her kid at
school investigating a story.
-- Ken from Chicago
trike
ftsen...@aol.com wrote:
> It's called "suspension of disbelief." Most movie watchers allow a
> lot of that when seeing a movie of this type, but I guess you didn't
> suspend your disbelief, since you're posting this thread.
Actually, it's "willing suspension of disbelief." The "willing" part
is important, as it emphasizes the fragility of that mental state.
> A bigger SoD would buying Lois Lane actress Kate Bosworth (who was only
> 22 during filming) playing a character old enough to have a 5-year old
> son, and intelligent and experienced enough to win a Pulitzer Prize,
> yet stupid enough to walk right onto the villain's boat and get caught.
> Do people think Kate looked mature enough for the Lois Lane character
> (who I'm guessing was supposed to be around 32, or 10 years older than
> Kate was)? Just curious.
I said the same thing as we were leaving the theatre, after my wife
wondered how she got a 6-year-old in five years. Something's dodgy
with the space-time continuum.
Doug
trike
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> "The food here is awful."
> "Yes, but what great portions--and presentation."
>
> So many problems with the writing, but lets begin with the biggest:
>
> What does Lois remember?
>
> She gets knocked up by Superman (does she even know his given name, Kal-El?)
> and he leaves for five years without saying goodbye and she's ticked off
> like every woman throughout history who has been abruptly abandoned by the
> father of their unborn baby.
>
> The problem is LOIS DOESN'T REMEMBER HAVING SEX WITH SUPERMAN
> --or does she?
> Would have been nice if the movie had a flashback of HER memory of the
> events of SUPERMAN II. For a movie that supposed to pick up from SUPERMAN II
> would have been nice for SUPERMAN RETURNS to deal with the core of the
> movie: Clark and Lois.
The more I think on it, the worse it gets. It's not just failures in
the story, it's also failures in the filmmaking. Look at the physical
punishment lois takes -- banged around inside a crashing plane, a steel
bulkhead door slamming her on the head, and she's still up and about
moments after these experiences. Maybe Jason hasn't inherited
Superman's abilities, but rather hers.
> But wait, it's worse.
>
> Was Lois never going to tell Superman he was a dad if he hadn't been
> comatose? Now that he knows, is it possible he might reveal he's Clark Kent,
> since they have a kid together? He can trust her to raise his kid but not
> keep his secret identity? I thought SMALLVILLE made Clark act like a total
> jerk--especially relative to Lex Luthor--with Lana Lang, but it's got
> nothing on SUPERMAN RETURNS having Superman act like a jerk with Lois Lane.
Well, it's a well-known fact that Superman is a dick.
Here's proof:
http://www.superdickery.com/dick/1.html
Now we have incontrovertible proof that not only is Lois an unpleasant
person (something I've always thought), but she's a slut, to boot. I
mean, she would've had to have hooked up with Richard pretty soon after
sleeping with Superman in order for him to believe that Jason is his
son.
> Speaking of jerks and Lex Luthor, you'd think he'd learn to STOP trusting
> women who aren't ruthlessly cold-bloodedly vicious and heartless as he, nor
> share his Machievellian ambitious vision. At least his henchMEN weren't as
> bumbling as Otis, and at least shared the lump of coal Luthor had for a
> heart.
I think that's on the Evil Supervillain list -- don't have a woman in
your organization, for they will ultimately betray you.
Look at what Mirage did to Syndrome in The Incredibles. His plan
would've worked if it weren't for her.
> Also, for all his ranting about having advanced alien technology,
> maybe he would have thought about growing some BEFORE taking on the leading
> superpower in the world--or anyone with nuclear weapons. Sure, he had
> kryptonite, but that won't do jack against nerve gas, nukes or even plain
> conventional bombs (to say nothing of the more exotic "daisy cutters"). Bank
> robbers had more fire power than the "greatest criminal mind in the world!".
> Maybe that explains why after launching not one but TWO nuclear weapons on
> US soil and collaborating with an alien takeover of the US of A, and the
> rest of the world, Lex is freed merely because ONE of the many witnesses
> against him is absent. Clearly September 10th thinking back then.
If Superman reversed time so that the bombs never went off, why was
Luthor in prison? If he was there simply because Superman said so,
then I can see how he got out as Superman Returns has it. Thing is,
though, his "two nukes" plan is still a good one -- it worked, after
all. So why didn't he just do it again?
Of course, in Superman: The Movie, Superman didn't reverse time to stop
Lex, but just to save Lois. But the fact that there's no mention of
the loss of California in Superman II strongly implies that the bombs
did not, in fact, go off. (Of course, I've only seen Superman II once,
and that was some 25+ years ago, so I may be misremembering.)
> Speaking of thinking, what is Perry thinking in having the DAILY PLANET
> "only" cover Superman--like apparently "every other newspaper" was doing?
> Wouldn't he at least want a FRESH angle that wasn't being mirrored by
> everyone else, by going after the blackout story? And what major paper in a
> major metropolitan center does NOT have COLOR photos? Sad to see BLACK AND
> WHITE photos from the color cell phone pictures taken.
I was thinking that, too. Although that is clearly a world where
people still read newspapers, so other minor rules might be different,
too.
As I said in a post last night in the Bad Astronomy thread, in order to
more fully engage the audience's willing suspension of disbelief, a
filmmaker really needs to get as many details as possible correct so
that we'll buy into the really big whopper at the core of the story.
> How come the local authorities didn't seem to be investigating? At the very
> least the electrical utilities shoulda had some workers out inspecting the
> area. If Lois can track down the source third hand, the electrical company
> would have had first hand knowledge of EXACTLY how power grid went down.
> That's what happened here in Chicago in the '90s when he major blackouts and
> Mayor Daley crack the whip on ComEd. That's why Illinois was in a better
> condition when the power went out in the northeastern region of the US a few
> years ago, forcing millions of New Yorkers to walk home. Even so, in the
> Northeast the source of the blackout was tracked. Btw, what the frell was
> Luthor waiting for at the docks? He had his precious crystals, why was he
> just waiting around instead of getting his plan into motion?
Clearly he was waiting for Jason to get out of school.
I can just imagine how much better this film would've been if it had
been written by almost anyone else. Brad Bird, Joss Whedon, James
Cameron, Harold Ramis, Zemeckis & Gale....
> I've said it a thousand times before and say again:
>
> In good science fiction, the rules of science can be broken, but the rules
> of fiction can not.
>
> Plot, characterization, themes, the basic requirements of fictional
> storytelling do not change.
Yeah, it's the multiple major internal errors that kill Superman
Returns for me. Plus they were mean to dogs. That was just uncool.
Sure seemed like someone in the creative team hates dogs.
"Want to play fetch, boy? Oops, I threw your ball INTO ORBIT! HA HA!"
Superman is a dick.
> -- Ken from Chicago (who believes a man can fly, and that's when the movie
> at its best--just had trouble with the folks on the ground)
>
> P.S. What's with the super boy? Anyone gonna clue him in? Lex figures it out
> and leaves him alone. Lois waits forever to ask for his help getting out of
> the kitchen. Even so he does jack squat until she gets tired and sits down.
> In fact for most of the movie he sits and stares, like Ebert says, some kind
> of beta version of Damien.
>
> P.P.S. "It's not easy for me to live my life being who I am keeping
> secrets." In the trailer but not the movie.
It's loud, it's dumb, it's Superman.
Doug
Ar Q
>
> The more I think on it, the worse it gets. It's not just failures in
> the story, it's also failures in the filmmaking. Look at the physical
> punishment lois takes -- banged around inside a crashing plane, a steel
> bulkhead door slamming her on the head, and she's still up and about
> moments after these experiences. Maybe Jason hasn't inherited
> Superman's abilities, but rather hers.
>
I think it is cool if they makes Lois be from other planet, say Venus. That
will be a great twist.
bar...@shentel.net
events of Superman and Superman 2. Is it really that much of a problem
to just assume something happened differently?
You know, maybe, just maybe they had sex once after Superman 2, just
before he left?
JLB
trike
Given what happens in Superman II, I find that to be unlikely. On the
other hand, Superman Returns is all over the place story wise, so
there's room for plenty of other mistakes in that mess.
Doug
Ken from Chicago
<ftsen...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151828612.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> It's called "suspension of disbelief." Most movie watchers allow a
> lot of that when seeing a movie of this type, but I guess you didn't
> suspend your disbelief, since you're posting this thread.
To quote Lex Luthor, WRRRROOOOOOONNNNNG!
Movies of this type--when done WELL--do NOT require suspension of disbelief
in HUMAN REACTIONS. Kryptonians may fly, Martians can shapeshift,
Thanagarians have jet hairstreams, but humans are humans and act and react
humanly.
In good science fiction, the rules of science can be broken but the rules of
fiction can not--or should not.
The problem is that so many makers, directors, producers and writers have
created so much unmitigated crap and labelled it "science fiction" that the
mass audience have been understandly fooled into thinking that in science
fiction none of the rules need apply. If the rules of gravity don't apply,
then neither do the rules of good storytelling.
Forget the superheroics, Lois gets knocked up by this guy but loses her
memory of him and the events surrounding it, and the guy disappears. She
discovers she's pregnant--how? How did she become pregnant? What's her
reaction to her OB/GYN to that announcement? To quote Xena, "Maybe you
didn't hear me, Doctor. Getting pregnant requires a certain physical element
that I haven't had for a long time ... I'm talking a VERY long time. I am a
love-free zone, so it is utterly IMPOSSIBLE that I be up the duff!" After
all, Lois is a workaholic so dating much less knowing a guy in the Biblical
sense is a major event in her life and lack of same while getting preggers
would generate ... a bit ... of a reaction on her part.
After having the kid she notes certain characteristics that were similar to
the one guy she knew or thought she knew (even Biblically) but doesn't tell
anyone about, including her new boyfriend, who arrives on the scene soon
enough for the kid to think of as "Dad", and Lois doesn't abuse him of the
idea. And that's it ... for five years.
The biological dad returns and she's furious he left without so much of a
goodbye and doesn't mention he has a son, until he ends up in a horrible
accident. After he recovers he still keep her and the boy at arm's length.
Oh and the guy STILL doesn't reveal his real name to Lois.
The problem there has nothing to do with extraterrestrials or meteor rocks
or megalomaniacal villains, it's one with simple, logical human
reactions--and lack thereof. Clark was raised by the Kents to be a good
person and this is how he treats the woman he loves and mother of his child?
Now if Lois knew Clark was Superman then it would have been an infinitely
better story: Lois trying to maintain a calm professional demeanor around
Clark at work while furious as all get out while debating to tell him he's a
father. Aside from her welcoming Clark back, discussing someone leaving
without saying goodbye and discussing Superman to Richard--take those 3
scenes out of the movie--and that SEEMED to be the way they wanted to play
it.
> A bigger SoD would buying Lois Lane actress Kate Bosworth (who was only
> 22 during filming) playing a character old enough to have a 5-year old
> son, and intelligent and experienced enough to win a Pulitzer Prize,
> yet stupid enough to walk right onto the villain's boat and get caught.
> Do people think Kate looked mature enough for the Lois Lane character
> (who I'm guessing was supposed to be around 32, or 10 years older than
> Kate was)? Just curious.
>
> -Frank
No, not even close. Lois now looks YOUNGER than she did 30-er, I mean "5
years" ago.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.comics.dc.universe/msg/df85d39f4aeadeaf?hl=en&
She certainly doesn't look like the hard-bitten cynical, seen-it-all major
metropolitan reporter. Margot Kidder was all over that perfectly, even
managed to play the character as actually being DIFFICULT at being "soft".
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<bar...@shentel.net> wrote in message
news:1151843853.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Fine, then SAY so. How difficult would it have been for the movie to do a
flashback? If there was a time constraint, they could have easily cut the
flashback of Clark running in the field for showing Lois's view of the
events "5 years ago". In interview after interview Bryan Singer kept saying
SR is a continuation after S2, fine, then deal with THE major core plot of
the movie--since he's made it the heart of SUPERMAN III: SUPERMAN RETURNS.
-- Ken from Chicago
bar...@shentel.net
I just read an interview that calls the first movies "a vague history"
If things were exactly like the first time then it would be a diret
history.
JLB
JLB
Ken from Chicago
<bar...@shentel.net> wrote in message
news:1151850840.0...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Then fine, then tell us the audience. That's even MORE reason to do a
flashback from Lois point of view.
-- Ken from Chicago
Brandon Fisher
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VPOdncR_3LXN8DrZ...@comcast.com...
> "The food here is awful."
> "Yes, but what great portions--and presentation."
>
> So many problems with the writing, but lets begin with the biggest:
>
> What does Lois remember?
>
> She gets knocked up by Superman (does she even know his given name,
> Kal-El?) and he leaves for five years without saying goodbye and she's
> ticked off like every woman throughout history who has been abruptly
> abandoned by the father of their unborn baby.
>
> The problem is LOIS DOESN'T REMEMBER HAVING SEX WITH SUPERMAN--or does
> she? Would have been nice if the movie had a flashback of HER memory of
> the events of SUPERMAN II. For a movie that supposed to pick up from
> SUPERMAN II would have been nice for SUPERMAN RETURNS to deal with the
> core of the movie: Clark and Lois.
The only problem with the movie is how it relates to previous movies. How
much of Superman 1 + 2 is within continuity? That's the problem.
There is no way that the Superman II sex was the point of conception no
matter what. First, as has been pointed out, if Superman II is within
continuity of Returns, she doesn't remember (honestly, that's the dumbest
device in any Superman movie - dumber than the spinning-the-world-backwards
thing). Second... how could anyone not know that Richard is not the father
had that been the case? We'd have to believe that she slept with Richard
the day after Superman II ended.... or earlier, since Clark's hike back to
the Fortress of Solitue should've taken quite a long time.
Is what is odd is that it seems that Singer did not share this plot point
with anyone working on other projects based on the script. In the prequel
comic, it's apparent that Lois had a somewhat lengthy courtship with
Richard. No Superman sex is even mentioned in the comic. It's obvious that
the writers of the comic had no idea Jason would be Superman's son.
Check out the novel that is based on the screenplay - Jason isn't Superman's
kid in the novel. There is no piano-crushing. I believe Lois knocked out
the bad guy by tipping over a bookcase. There is no scene at the end of the
novel between Superman/Jason where Superman echos Jor-El's father-son
dialogue.
Very odd. I am so interested in hearing Singer explain how this works....
Lilith
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
><ftsen...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1151828612.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> It's called "suspension of disbelief." Most movie watchers allow a
>> lot of that when seeing a movie of this type, but I guess you didn't
>> suspend your disbelief, since you're posting this thread.
>
>To quote Lex Luthor, WRRRROOOOOOONNNNNG!
>
>Movies of this type--when done WELL--do NOT require suspension of disbelief
>in HUMAN REACTIONS. Kryptonians may fly, Martians can shapeshift,
>Thanagarians have jet hairstreams, but humans are humans and act and react
>humanly.
Now you're asking me to suspend too much disbelief. Thanagarians do
not have jet hairstreams. Tamaranians, on the other hand, do.
:-)
>-- Ken from Chicago
--
Lilith from Thanagar (who wishes she had jet hairstreams)
Ken from Chicago
"Lilith" <lil...@dcccd.edu> wrote in message
news:6tqfa2pblp39cbjou...@4ax.com...
Don't all extraterrestrials look alike?
-- Ken from Chicago
Brandon Fisher
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CtadnRM7S8PLdTrZ...@comcast.com...
>> I just read an interview that calls the first movies "a vague history"
>> If things were exactly like the first time then it would be a diret
>> history.
>>
>> JLB
>>
>> JLB
>>
>
> Then fine, then tell us the audience. That's even MORE reason to do a
> flashback from Lois point of view.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
But.. when did they tell you, the audience, that the movie was in any way
related to Superman and Superman II? Nowhere in the film does it say that.
You're aware of some correlation based on interviews outside of the film
where the filmmakers have discussed that they drew from those two movies.
Of course, there are numerous callbacks to the first two movies in Superman
Returns. But, there is nothing concrete in the film saying that those first
two movies are within continuity.
I admit, the ties to the first two movies make this more confusing than it
should be. On the one hand, there is plenty to suggest Superman/Superman II
are within Returns continuity. On the other hand... that kid tells me it's
not. If I had to guess, I'd say that Singer drew on the best parts of the
first two movies for inspiration and took it from there. The prequel comics
may be a good sampling of what he took (there are many scenes from the first
film adapted in those prequel comics).
I do agree - some flashback sequence catching us up with what Singer is
actually using as his "prequel" would have been welcome. I'm so happy that
he did carry so much from the first film over. But, it forces these
continuity questions that otherwise would never happen.
trike
I can readily imagine that Lois went looking for comfort in the arms of
a nearby attractive man after the love of her life disappears, so the
whole "Richard is my son's daddy" thing makes sense. The problem there
is that part is implied, and without having seen Superman II, you have
no way of knowing that Superman erased Lois' memory of their tryst.
A film focussing on that aspect of their relationship would be
interesting. Unfortunately, they never delved into that part of the
story. The way Bosworth played the scene in Luthor's yacht, it can be
construed that she knows who Jason's father really is, rather than just
discovering it at that moment and having it confirmed moments later.
Since her memory of their sexual dalliance was erased, she should be
utterly mystified by how it's possible for her to have Superman's son.
Instead, she seems to accept it unquestioningly, which is evidence that
she does, in fact, know the turht, and has all along.
Very badly written movie, on any number of levels.
Doug
trike
That's just bizarre. It wouldn't even be that last-minute of an
addition, given all the stuff that needs to happen in the film around
that revelation.
Doug
Ken from Chicago
"Brandon Fisher" <bfi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:J5Upg.34163$Ui7....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Then skip SUPERMAN II, Superman had sex with Lois but NEVER revealed his
real identity? In what universe is that any where light-years from being
infinitely worse than the events of SII?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151864519.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
In that case, that means Superman had sex with Lois but NEVER revealed he
was Clark. That's even worse.
-- Ken from Chicago
bar...@shentel.net
Why? Lois wanted Superman, not Clark.
JLB
Ken from Chicago
<bar...@shentel.net> wrote in message
news:1151869686....@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1151864519.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> >> <bar...@shentel.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:1151843853.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>> > Since her memory of their sexual dalliance was erased, she should be
>> > utterly mystified by how it's possible for her to have Superman's son.
>> > Instead, she seems to accept it unquestioningly, which is evidence that
>> > she does, in fact, know the turht, and has all along.
>> >
>> > Very badly written movie, on any number of levels.
>> >
>> > Doug
>> >
>>
>> In that case, that means Superman had sex with Lois but NEVER revealed he
>> was Clark. That's even worse.
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> Why? Lois wanted Superman, not Clark.
>
> JLB
Clark IS Superman--or at least a part. He's not just his day job or his
after-hours "hobby".
-- Ken from Chicago
David Johnston
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
><bar...@shentel.net> wrote in message
>news:1151869686....@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>> "trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1151864519.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>> >
>>> > Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>> >> <bar...@shentel.net> wrote in message
>>> >> news:1151843853.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
><snip>
>
>>> > Since her memory of their sexual dalliance was erased, she should be
>>> > utterly mystified by how it's possible for her to have Superman's son.
>>> > Instead, she seems to accept it unquestioningly, which is evidence that
>>> > she does, in fact, know the turht, and has all along.
>>> >
>>> > Very badly written movie, on any number of levels.
>>> >
>>> > Doug
>>> >
>>>
>>> In that case, that means Superman had sex with Lois but NEVER revealed he
>>> was Clark. That's even worse.
>>>
>>> -- Ken from Chicago
>>
>> Why? Lois wanted Superman, not Clark.
>>
>> JLB
>
>Clark IS Superman--or at least a part.
Not in those days. Back then, Clark was a total phony who only showed
his real self as Superman. He pretended to be weak, clutzy and unsure
of himself, and in reality he was none of those things.
bar...@shentel.net
Yep.
JLB
Gustav...@yahoo.com
> What does Lois remember?
>
> She gets knocked up by Superman (does she even know his given name, Kal-El?)
> and he leaves for five years without saying goodbye and she's ticked off
> like every woman throughout history who has been abruptly abandoned by the
> father of their unborn baby.
>
> The problem is LOIS DOESN'T REMEMBER HAVING SEX WITH SUPERMAN--or does she?
> Would have been nice if the movie had a flashback of HER memory of the
> events of SUPERMAN II. For a movie that supposed to pick up from SUPERMAN II
> would have been nice for SUPERMAN RETURNS to deal with the core of the
> movie: Clark and Lois.
The movie did deal with it. Richard asked about the "I spend the night
with Superman" headline, and she paused and said that nothing had
happened. She was pretty clearly lying (or her acting was weak, and it
just looked like she was lying. It works in this case).
Something happened after Superman II. We know Superman makes mistakes
(appeared in Superman IV), so the
bang-Lois-and-never-mention-that-he's-also-Clark could have happened.
She'll figure it out soon enough, since she dropped her cell phone
camera thing and his glasses fell off, and they already set up the fact
that in this universe cell phones take excellent pictures, albeit in
black and white...
> P.S. What's with the super boy? Anyone gonna clue him in? Lex figures it out
> and leaves him alone. Lois waits forever to ask for his help getting out of
> the kitchen. Even so he does jack squat until she gets tired and sits down.
> In fact for most of the movie he sits and stares, like Ebert says, some kind
> of beta version of Damien.
Think Rocky V. He trains the youngster, and then beats the crap out of
him on a street corner.
I would have loved her to explain that the kid has super-strength
because she was with the Martian Manhunter, and that she's just a cape
chaser.
--Gustavo
tphile
>>>
>>>Why? Lois wanted Superman, not Clark.
>>>
>>>JLB
>>
>>Clark IS Superman--or at least a part.
>
>
> Not in those days. Back then, Clark was a total phony who only showed
> his real self as Superman. He pretended to be weak, clutzy and unsure
> of himself, and in reality he was none of those things.
>
and there is a very good reason for that. Clark would want someone to
love him for what he was, not for what he can do as Superman. To win
Lois heart, without having her career spoil it.
Kinda like a rich person might want to hide his bank account so a woman
or friends like him for himself and not be a leech or mercenary.
To Lois, Superman is a definite career trophy. Her reporting on his
actions alone puts her in the big time, pulitzers, big bucks etc.
Most everyone wants to be Supermans Pal for the status and whatever
they can get out of him. Just as the lottery winner, new person in
public office or hollywood star suddenly is surrounded by friends who
would have never given him the time of day before. Not something to be
proud of or to trust.
Clark would want Lois to love him whether he had powers or not.
at the end of the film, when Lois is looking at that line. Why The
World Needs Superman.
I was kinda hoping we would see her delete that and then type
Why Superman Needs The World. and then start typing.
He is an orphan who lost his home and everyone like him. and so wanting
his new home to like and accept him is ever more important
tphile
trike
You gotta hand it to Supes -- that's the ultimate date rape by the
ultimate jock.
And may I just say, what the hell happened with "truth" up there?
"turht"? What the hell is that about?
Doug
trike
I think it's time for the obligatory Superman quote from Kill Bill
(didn't like the film but I love this quote):
"An essential characteristic of the superhero mythology is, there's the
superhero, and there's the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne,
Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When he wakes up in the morning,
he's Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And
it is in that characteristic that Superman stands alone. Superman did
not become Superman, Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up
in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit
with the big red "S", that's the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby
when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears, the
glasses, the business suit, that's the costume. That's the costume
Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views
us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He's weak, he's
unsure of himself... he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique
on the whole human race."
Doug
trike
This part of what you said above:
> at the end of the film, when Lois is looking at that line. Why The
> World Needs Superman.
> I was kinda hoping we would see her delete that and then type
> Why Superman Needs The World. and then start typing.
> He is an orphan who lost his home and everyone like him. and so wanting
> his new home to like and accept him is ever more important
makes you about 1,000 times smarter and more insightful than the guys
who actually wrote Superman Returns.
Good job.
Doug
bar...@shentel.net
Bullcrap. If it's a critique of the human race it's in the fact they
they will dismiss a weak, unsure of himself, coward and not notice him.
If Superman felt that way then he would not be Clark Kent, he would not
feel the need to protect the human race. Oh, sure you could make the
case that people take care of their pets, but they also make sure the
pets no who is in charge. So you can't use that relationship.
Pop culture took a turn for the worse, when the audience started
thinking the villain's pseudo-psycholigical claptrap had some merit to
it.
I don't suppose anyone bothered to tell Bill that after Batman and
Spiderman put on those costumes for the first time, they didn't have to
take them off.
JLB
David Johnston
Bill's analysis is cute, but it's the musings of a crazy man who
holds humanity in contempt and projects that feeling onto someone
else's character. Clark is pretending to be as much unlike his real
self as he can possibly be same as Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel.
When the only disguise you have is a pair of glasses, you need all the
help you can get.
David Johnston
wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Why? Lois wanted Superman, not Clark.
>>>>
>>>>JLB
>>>
>>>Clark IS Superman--or at least a part.
>>
>>
>> Not in those days. Back then, Clark was a total phony who only showed
>> his real self as Superman. He pretended to be weak, clutzy and unsure
>> of himself, and in reality he was none of those things.
>>
>
>and there is a very good reason for that. Clark would want someone to
>love him for what he was,
Weak, clumsy and unsure of himself? That is not what he was.
tphile
Thanks but I'm not getting any of the big bucks for it, percentage of
the profits, screen credits or a chance to steal some props. Dammit
How smart is that???
;-)
tphile
bar...@shentel.net
Do some searching around the internet. There's more than one version
of Clark Kent. And most of the time he is exactly as described. I
found a comic from the 70's when he was a GBS anchor, where he
explained a disapperence to his boss as not being able to stomach the
violence of a Superman battle. I don't mean moral implications, seeing
all that superpowered fighting made him nautious.
JLB
Invid Fan
<"Gustav...@yahoo.com"> wrote:
> I would have loved her to explain that the kid has super-strength
> because she was with the Martian Manhunter, and that she's just a cape
> chaser.
>
She was just sitting on Hawkgirl's egg, and, well...
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
David Johnston
As I said, as Clark he was a phony.
Brandon Fisher
>> Is what is odd is that it seems that Singer did not share this plot point
>> with anyone working on other projects based on the script. In the
>> prequel
>> comic, it's apparent that Lois had a somewhat lengthy courtship with
>> Richard. No Superman sex is even mentioned in the comic. It's obvious
>> that
>> the writers of the comic had no idea Jason would be Superman's son.
>>
>> Check out the novel that is based on the screenplay - Jason isn't
>> Superman's
>> kid in the novel. There is no piano-crushing. I believe Lois knocked
>> out
>> the bad guy by tipping over a bookcase. There is no scene at the end of
>> the
>> novel between Superman/Jason where Superman echos Jor-El's father-son
>> dialogue.
>>
>> Very odd. I am so interested in hearing Singer explain how this
>> works....
>
> That's just bizarre. It wouldn't even be that last-minute of an
> addition, given all the stuff that needs to happen in the film around
> that revelation.
>
I don't know - the only thing that changes is the way Lois avoids her
attacker and that one scene in Jason's room at the end. Although, the whole
"son" thing does help bookend the film nicely and make it so Superman isn't
exactly "alone" any longer. I'm guessing Singer was trying to keep it
ultra-secret... so secret, he hid it from the people adapting the script
into other forms.
Brandon Fisher
>> I do agree - some flashback sequence catching us up with what Singer is
>> actually using as his "prequel" would have been welcome. I'm so happy
>> that he did carry so much from the first film over. But, it forces these
>> continuity questions that otherwise would never happen.
>
> Then skip SUPERMAN II, Superman had sex with Lois but NEVER revealed his
> real identity? In what universe is that any where light-years from being
> infinitely worse than the events of SII?
>
??? In what universe is there an issue with that at all? I can't even
really comprehend what the issue would be with Superman having sex with Lois
and not revealing he's Clark. Lois barely tolerates Clark in the movies.
Superman IS his real identity in the movies. Clark Kent is the disguise.
Lois loves Superman... Clark is a mildly annoying acquaintance. That's
fine, too, since Clark is a total act! Did you see her reaction to Clark
when he brought up his concern that his being put on the blackout story
might harm their "relationship"? She was shocked Clark thought they had
one.
It would take quite alot to be worse than the events of Superman II - a
world where Superman has the power to remove short term memory by kissing
people and has no problem with giving up his power to help billions of
people just so he could bang Margot Kidder.
Brandon Fisher
<Gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151873280....@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
> The movie did deal with it. Richard asked about the "I spend the night
> with Superman" headline, and she paused and said that nothing had
> happened. She was pretty clearly lying (or her acting was weak, and it
> just looked like she was lying. It works in this case).
She wasn't lying. She was trying to avoid his line of questioning, which
was obvious. She did not sleep with Superman during the "I spent the night
with Superman" interview (which I'm sure we're to correlate with the same
interview from the first movie...where they did not have sex). Plus, hiding
something when she said "nothing happened" doesn't mean that "something" had
to be sex. She pretty much fell in love with Superman during that
interview - because the Lois Lane in Superman 1/2 was incredibly shallow.
They developed more of a relationship between the two in Superman Returns
with one look than ever existed in the first two movies.
> She'll figure it out soon enough, since she dropped her cell phone
> camera thing and his glasses fell off, and they already set up the fact
> that in this universe cell phones take excellent pictures, albeit in
> black and white...
The cell phone didn't take a picture. That wasn't what that scene was
about. The scene was about his momentary thought of just telling her before
pulling back.
Joe Sewell
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "The food here is awful."
> "Yes, but what great portions--and presentation."
From my perspective, that has nothing whatsoever to do with Superman
Returns, but...
> So many problems with the writing, but lets begin with the biggest:
>
> What does Lois remember?
>
> She gets knocked up by Superman (does she even know his given name, Kal-El?)
> and he leaves for five years without saying goodbye and she's ticked off
> like every woman throughout history who has been abruptly abandoned by the
> father of their unborn baby.
>
> The problem is LOIS DOESN'T REMEMBER HAVING SEX WITH SUPERMAN--or does she?
> Would have been nice if the movie had a flashback of HER memory of the
> events of SUPERMAN II. For a movie that supposed to pick up from SUPERMAN II
> would have been nice for SUPERMAN RETURNS to deal with the core of the
> movie: Clark and Lois.
This said after everybody panned "Lois and Clark" *because* it dealt too
much with the relationship. (sigh)
> But wait, it's worse.
>
> Was Lois never going to tell Superman he was a dad if he hadn't been
> comatose? Now that he knows, is it possible he might reveal he's Clark Kent,
> since they have a kid together? He can trust her to raise his kid but not
> keep his secret identity? I thought SMALLVILLE made Clark act like a total
> jerk--especially relative to Lex Luthor--with Lana Lang, but it's got
> nothing on SUPERMAN RETURNS having Superman act like a jerk with Lois Lane.
Okay, here goes. The way I took it (albeit biased, perhaps, by the
Prequel comics), Lois actually thought that Jason was her son *by
Richard White.* She wasn't mad that Superman got her pregnant and
bailed, but that Superman, whom she thought loved her, left. THEN she
hitched up with Richard, and apparently "did it" soon enough afterward
that she thought the child was *his.* After all, would YOU expect an
asthmatic child with all those meds to be half-Kryptonian?
She didn't tell Superman until he was comatose because (a) she was still
trying to deny her feelings for him, (b) she still wanted to be mad at
him for leaving, (c) everybody was more than a little busy between the
time she found out and the time Superman collapsed, and (d) she may not
have wanted Richard to find out. I don't know about you, but I think
she had ***plenty*** of reason not to confess to him before then.
(I also think it's somewhat sad to hear that folks want to think of
Superman as perfect, incapable of being a jerk, while others claim
Marvel has more believable characters.)
> Speaking of jerks and Lex Luthor, you'd think he'd learn to STOP trusting
> women who aren't ruthlessly cold-bloodedly vicious and heartless as he, nor
> share his Machievellian ambitious vision. At least his henchMEN weren't as
> bumbling as Otis, and at least shared the lump of coal Luthor had for a
> heart. Also, for all his ranting about having advanced alien technology,
> maybe he would have thought about growing some BEFORE taking on the leading
> superpower in the world--or anyone with nuclear weapons. Sure, he had
> kryptonite, but that won't do jack against nerve gas, nukes or even plain
> conventional bombs (to say nothing of the more exotic "daisy cutters"). Bank
> robbers had more fire power than the "greatest criminal mind in the world!".
> Maybe that explains why after launching not one but TWO nuclear weapons on
> US soil and collaborating with an alien takeover of the US of A, and the
> rest of the world, Lex is freed merely because ONE of the many witnesses
> against him is absent. Clearly September 10th thinking back then.
I don't follow your reasoning here. Presuming that the first two movies
are still in continuity (vs. only "selected" portions, as is the opinion
of some ... personally, I'm not at all sure which is correct), his
having alien technology came AFTER the nukes, didn't they? One of the
reasons Luthor was bitter was that Superman had all those "cool toys" --
oops, sorry, wrong bad guy, wrong good guy -- all that "power" but he
never shared with the most important person in the universe, Lex Luthor.
I do agree, though, that some of the story behind the lost 5 years
seemed a little weak. Sadly, I can easily believe that he'd be set free
because one witness wasn't present, given the condition of today's
judicial system.
> Speaking of thinking, what is Perry thinking in having the DAILY PLANET
> "only" cover Superman--like apparently "every other newspaper" was doing?
> Wouldn't he at least want a FRESH angle that wasn't being mirrored by
> everyone else, by going after the blackout story? And what major paper in a
> major metropolitan center does NOT have COLOR photos? Sad to see BLACK AND
> WHITE photos from the color cell phone pictures taken.
I can't defend the monochrome photos, but Perry realizes that the Planet
is "Superman's newspaper." Sure, everybody else would be covering him,
but folks expect the Planet to have the inside line. He's just trying
to reclaim that reputation before some other paper (like the Daily Star?
:) ) did.
> How come the local authorities didn't seem to be investigating? At the very
> least the electrical utilities shoulda had some workers out inspecting the
> area. If Lois can track down the source third hand, the electrical company
> would have had first hand knowledge of EXACTLY how power grid went down.
> That's what happened here in Chicago in the '90s when he major blackouts and
> Mayor Daley crack the whip on ComEd. That's why Illinois was in a better
> condition when the power went out in the northeastern region of the US a few
> years ago, forcing millions of New Yorkers to walk home. Even so, in the
> Northeast the source of the blackout was tracked. Btw, what the frell was
> Luthor waiting for at the docks? He had his precious crystals, why was he
> just waiting around instead of getting his plan into motion?
I presumed the utilities were indeed looking at the cause of the
blackout off-camera.
I'm trying to recall precisely which scene had Luthor waiting at the
docks. Still, as a guess, he was probably confident that nobody or
nothing could stop him, so why be in such a rush?
> I've said it a thousand times before and say again:
>
> In good science fiction, the rules of science can be broken, but the rules
> of fiction can not.
>
> Plot, characterization, themes, the basic requirements of fictional
> storytelling do not change.
Neither does the fact that what some people consider not good, others
find enjoyable.
> -- Ken from Chicago (who believes a man can fly, and that's when the movie
> at its best--just had trouble with the folks on the ground)
>
> P.S. What's with the super boy? Anyone gonna clue him in? Lex figures it out
> and leaves him alone. Lois waits forever to ask for his help getting out of
> the kitchen. Even so he does jack squat until she gets tired and sits down.
> In fact for most of the movie he sits and stares, like Ebert says, some kind
> of beta version of Damien.
He was scared out of his wits, for crying out loud. He never saw
Superman, so he had no idea he was half-Kryptonian (albeit a depowered
Kryptonian). He was on tons of medications, and doted upon by his
mother, which probably leads to being quite scared of the unknown. (As
a sickly, asthmatic kid myself, I can relate all too well.) Lois was
probably still in denial, thinking Jason just got a lucky shot or
something in ... no, it's not reasonable, but we're talking humans, not
rational, intelligent beings.
> P.P.S. "It's not easy for me to live my life being who I am keeping
> secrets." In the trailer but not the movie.
One of probably many shots that had to get removed to fit it into 2.5
hours.
--
_
ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Fight Spam! Join the Coalition
against HTML e-mail X Against Unsolicited Commercial Email
http://www.metacon.ca/ascii / \ http://www.cauce.org
Pat O'Neill
much like it--with a well-known three-word phrase:
Get a life.
First of all: The vast majority of the audience for this movie has
never seen Superman I or II, or if they have, do not recall the details
in the way the comics-obsessed denizens of this newsgroup do. They
really don't care if all the references (or lack thereof) tie in
exactly with the events of those movies.
Second: The important question is--does the movie stand on its own? Do
the references to prior events...as they are described in THIS
movie...make sense? If they do, then there's no problem. If they don't,
then there is. My recollection (I didn't record every word of dialog,
after all) is that, for the most part, they do make sense. As an
example, I recall no precise reference to Jason White's age--yes, he
appears to be somewhere between 4-1/2 and 6, and 6 would be too old to
be Superman's son as events are described in the film, but without a
specific on-screen reference to his age, there's no problem.
Third: If all the questions raised in this thread (and the others)
occurred to you as you watched the movie, then the movie failed because
it did not hold your attention well enough to keep you from wondering
about such esoterica. If they didn't occur to you until afterward, then
the movie did its primary job--it entertained you by telling a
compelling story.
tphile
that it is evident that Superman didn't know Lois was pregnant with
his alleged son. otherwise he would have never left like he did.
That seems clear from his actions.
and can we be sure the Clark is the daddy? He could also be a
Zod or Non junior.
and do we really know the full abilities and mission of the Fortress
of Solitude? that green crystal could have another function.
The fortress contains a lot of kryptonian technology and information
"from the 28 known galaxies". It might also function as a kryptonian
life seeding device. containing the genetic data of kryptonian life
and how to alter humans to be them.
It would give Jor-els words of "he will never be alone" a whole new and
ominous meaning.
;-)
tphile
Michael S. Schiffer
news:1151873280....@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>...
> The movie did deal with it. Richard asked about the "I spend the
> night with Superman" headline, and she paused and said that
> nothing had happened. She was pretty clearly lying (or her
> acting was weak, and it just looked like she was lying. It works
> in this case).
She wasn't telling the whole truth, but she wasn't strictly lying.
IIRC, that was the title of her piece after her first flight with
Superman in the first movie, so nothing did happen... *then*.
(Among the nice subtle shoutouts to the first film: Lois taking off
her shoes before going flying in this one, because she lost a shoe
the first time she flew with him.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Duggy
Pat O'Neill wrote:
> Get a life.
Whatever.
> First of all: The vast majority of the audience for this movie has
> never seen Superman I or II, or if they have, do not recall the details
> in the way the comics-obsessed denizens of this newsgroup do.
And the fact that a memory of Superman II was important for
understanding Superman Returns was one of the flaws in it.
I was confused about when Superman had sex with Lois until about 2/3rd
of the way through when I remembered details of Superman II. Most
people, as you say, would have stayed confused.
> Second: The important question is--does the movie stand on its own?
No,
> Third: If all the questions raised in this thread (and the others)
> occurred to you as you watched the movie, then the movie failed because
> it did not hold your attention well enough to keep you from wondering
> about such esoterica.
The questions raised occured while I was watching the film until I
remember the sex in Superman II, then I was happy.
===
= DUG.
===
bar...@shentel.net
Duggy wrote:
> Pat O'Neill wrote:
> > Get a life.
>
> Whatever.
>
> > First of all: The vast majority of the audience for this movie has
> > never seen Superman I or II, or if they have, do not recall the details
> > in the way the comics-obsessed denizens of this newsgroup do.
>
> And the fact that a memory of Superman II was important for
> understanding Superman Returns was one of the flaws in it.
>
> I was confused about when Superman had sex with Lois until about 2/3rd
> of the way through when I remembered details of Superman II. Most
> people, as you say, would have stayed confused.
If you're agreeing based on the claim that people won't have seen
Superman 1 and 2 wouldn't the average fan in the seats just assume the
had sex about five years before?
Sort of like you can assume Scott and Jean had started dating before
the events of the X-men movie. Becuase they were dating in the X-men
movie.
JLB
Duggy
> If you're agreeing based on the claim that people won't have seen
> Superman 1 and 2 wouldn't the average fan in the seats just assume the
> had sex about five years before?
I didn't.
I can't see Clark/Superman having sex with Lois and then abandoning her
without a word.
There was also no reaction of "5 years old...?" from Clark and no
indication from Lois that she knew that Superman could be the father.
> Sort of like you can assume Scott and Jean had started dating before
> the events of the X-men movie. Becuase they were dating in the X-men
> movie.
They were dating when we were introduced to them. In Superman Returns
there is no real indication until late in the film and Jason could be
the son of Superman.
===
= DUG.
===
Fallen
>"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:ad6dncNoULnliTXZ...@comcast.com...
>
>
>>>I do agree - some flashback sequence catching us up with what Singer is
>>>actually using as his "prequel" would have been welcome. I'm so happy
>>>that he did carry so much from the first film over. But, it forces these
>>>continuity questions that otherwise would never happen.
>>>
>>>
>>Then skip SUPERMAN II, Superman had sex with Lois but NEVER revealed his
>>real identity? In what universe is that any where light-years from being
>>infinitely worse than the events of SII?
>>
>??? In what universe is there an issue with that at all? I can't even
>really comprehend what the issue would be with Superman having sex with Lois
>and not revealing he's Clark.
>
Because he's 'Superman'. He should be above sleeping with a woman and
not bothering to mention that during the days he pretends to be some
other guy that she works in close proximity with.
Then again he should also be above unprotected sex with a woman, (giving
her amnesia, or not - we just don't know) getting her pregnant, leaving
for a number of years then coming back and being jealous of a guy who
didn't sleep with her and leave for a number of years.
I don't want to watch films about 'Ordinary man gets amazing powers and
acts like your average nightclub denizen'.
Fallen.
V S Rawat
>
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
> > "The food here is awful."
> > "Yes, but what great portions--and presentation."
> >
> > So many problems with the writing, but lets begin with the biggest:
> >
> > What does Lois remember?
> >
> > She gets knocked up by Superman (does she even know his given name,
> > Kal-El?) and he leaves for five years without saying goodbye and
> > she's ticked off like every woman throughout history who has been
> > abruptly abandoned by the father of their unborn baby.
> >
> > The problem is LOIS DOESN'T REMEMBER HAVING SEX WITH SUPERMAN--or
> > does she?
>
> No, she doesn't. Or she shouldn't. Her memory was wiped at the end
> of Superman II, so she shouldn't really know that's Superman's kid
> she's had---until he pushed the piano across the room. Then she
> should have had a sudden eruption of memories caused by the event.
> And a new reason to be pissed, quite frankly. The story is just
> shoddy all over.
>
> But what stood out for me is that Lois must have hooked up with
> Perry's nephew pretty much the next day for him to believe it's his
> son.
Does having sex with superman convert nice girls into nymphomaniacs?
--
Rawat
Ken Arromdee
Brandon Fisher <bfi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>There is no way that the Superman II sex was the point of conception no
>matter what. First, as has been pointed out, if Superman II is within
>continuity of Returns, she doesn't remember (honestly, that's the dumbest
>device in any Superman movie - dumber than the spinning-the-world-backwards
>thing).
Well, super-hypnotism was a real power of Superman in the comics, and Superman
could travel through time. (I don't interpret the scene as literally
turning the world around--it's just a visual effect. If you travel back in
time, you'd see the world turning backwards.)
Of course, not every movie power is from the comics. The Phantom Zone
prisoners cannot shoot rays from their hands in any comic book version, and
let's not mention the rebuild-the-Great-Wall-vision.
>Second... how could anyone not know that Richard is not the father
>had that been the case? We'd have to believe that she slept with Richard
>the day after Superman II ended.... or earlier, since Clark's hike back to
>the Fortress of Solitue should've taken quite a long time.
Actually, that's a problem no matter what. If the timing makes it plausible
that Richard is the father, then Lois must have slept with Superman and
Richard in very close succession.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk
on water." --Samantha Carter, Stargate SG-1
trike
Occurred to me during.
Oh, and the whole "get a life" argument is pretty weak, considering
what you're doing.
Doug
Ken Arromdee
Brandon Fisher <bfi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>But.. when did they tell you, the audience, that the movie was in any way
>related to Superman and Superman II? Nowhere in the film does it say that.
>You're aware of some correlation based on interviews outside of the film
>where the filmmakers have discussed that they drew from those two movies.
>Of course, there are numerous callbacks to the first two movies in Superman
>Returns. But, there is nothing concrete in the film saying that those first
>two movies are within continuity.
There you go. There are numerous callbacks to the first two movies.
That's exactly why people think it's related to the first two movies. We
were pretty much told it without the movie actually spelling it out. If
the intent was "it's a lot like the first two movies only without the
amnesia," that's bad writing.
Besides, the amnesia is the only problem which is solved if you ignore the
first two movies. The kid still doesn't make sense.
trike
I don't care for that excuse. The whole "technicality" thing is a
cheap-ass argument. Did anyone cut Clinton any slack when he said, "I
did not have sexual relations with woman"? He was technically correct,
but there's a difference between technically true and what was meant.
Hiding a lie behind semantics is still a lie.
Doug
Ken Arromdee
<bar...@shentel.net> wrote:
>> In that case, that means Superman had sex with Lois but NEVER revealed he
>> was Clark. That's even worse.
Superman is Clark. I'd think that Superman wouldn't have sex with someone
without the relationship reaching a certain level of intimacy. The exact
details of that may be debatable, but it would have to at least include 1)
telling her about big life-affecting personal events that will put the
relationship on hold for five years, and 2) not hiding 95% of his life from
her, especially since as Clark he interacts with her regularly and that
interaction is tinged with dishonesty until he does tell her.
George Peatty
wrote:
>The cell phone didn't take a picture. That wasn't what that scene was
>about. The scene was about his momentary thought of just telling her before
>pulling back.
After reading all the threads here on Superman Returns, there is a *lot* of
"That wasn't what that scene was about" here. I am surprised at how many
people here who saw the movie, then come here and prove they didn't
understand what they saw ..
Then to build on that, they try to fit their misunderstood notions into the
previous movies' continuity, calling some scenes as gaffes and giving passes
to others.
I've been following the adventures of Superman for five decades, and have
learned two things about the character: the powers and abilities far beyond
those of mortal men will change from moment to moment without explanation,
and it is impossible to synthesize his backstory into a cohesive,
chronological scheme that makes sense.
George Peatty
>Second: The important question is--does the movie stand on its own?
This is the question, isn't it, not whether this movie fits with events of
the Reeve movies. Good essay.
George Peatty
<msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
>(Among the nice subtle shoutouts to the first film: Lois taking off
>her shoes before going flying in this one, because she lost a shoe
>the first time she flew with him.)
Her going flying with him at all is a shout-out to the first film ..
Ken Arromdee
tphile <tph...@cableone.net> wrote:
>> Not in those days. Back then, Clark was a total phony who only showed
>> his real self as Superman. He pretended to be weak, clutzy and unsure
>> of himself, and in reality he was none of those things.
>and there is a very good reason for that. Clark would want someone to
>Lois heart, without having her career spoil it.
There's a difference from hiding the powers and cape and hiding his
personality. If he hides his personality as Clark, then he can't expect
Lois to love him for what he is, because he isn't showing what he is.
Alric Knebel
> "The food here is awful."
> "Yes, but what great portions--and presentation."
>
> So many problems with the writing, but lets begin with the biggest:
>
> What does Lois remember?
>
> She gets knocked up by Superman (does she even know his given name, Kal-El?)
> and he leaves for five years without saying goodbye and she's ticked off
> like every woman throughout history who has been abruptly abandoned by the
> father of their unborn baby.
>
> The problem is LOIS DOESN'T REMEMBER HAVING SEX WITH SUPERMAN--or does she?
> Would have been nice if the movie had a flashback of HER memory of the
> events of SUPERMAN II. For a movie that supposed to pick up from SUPERMAN II
> would have been nice for SUPERMAN RETURNS to deal with the core of the
> movie: Clark and Lois.
>
> But wait, it's worse.
>
> Was Lois never going to tell Superman he was a dad if he hadn't been
> comatose? Now that he knows, is it possible he might reveal he's Clark Kent,
> since they have a kid together? He can trust her to raise his kid but not
> keep his secret identity? I thought SMALLVILLE made Clark act like a total
> jerk--especially relative to Lex Luthor--with Lana Lang, but it's got
> nothing on SUPERMAN RETURNS having Superman act like a jerk with Lois Lane.
>
> Speaking of jerks and Lex Luthor, you'd think he'd learn to STOP trusting
> women who aren't ruthlessly cold-bloodedly vicious and heartless as he, nor
> share his Machievellian ambitious vision. At least his henchMEN weren't as
> bumbling as Otis, and at least shared the lump of coal Luthor had for a
> heart. Also, for all his ranting about having advanced alien technology,
> maybe he would have thought about growing some BEFORE taking on the leading
> superpower in the world--or anyone with nuclear weapons. Sure, he had
> kryptonite, but that won't do jack against nerve gas, nukes or even plain
> conventional bombs (to say nothing of the more exotic "daisy cutters"). Bank
> robbers had more fire power than the "greatest criminal mind in the world!".
> Maybe that explains why after launching not one but TWO nuclear weapons on
> US soil and collaborating with an alien takeover of the US of A, and the
> rest of the world, Lex is freed merely because ONE of the many witnesses
> against him is absent. Clearly September 10th thinking back then.
>
> Speaking of thinking, what is Perry thinking in having the DAILY PLANET
> "only" cover Superman--like apparently "every other newspaper" was doing?
> Wouldn't he at least want a FRESH angle that wasn't being mirrored by
> everyone else, by going after the blackout story? And what major paper in a
> major metropolitan center does NOT have COLOR photos? Sad to see BLACK AND
> WHITE photos from the color cell phone pictures taken.
>
> How come the local authorities didn't seem to be investigating? At the very
> least the electrical utilities shoulda had some workers out inspecting the
> area. If Lois can track down the source third hand, the electrical company
> would have had first hand knowledge of EXACTLY how power grid went down.
> That's what happened here in Chicago in the '90s when he major blackouts and
> Mayor Daley crack the whip on ComEd. That's why Illinois was in a better
> condition when the power went out in the northeastern region of the US a few
> years ago, forcing millions of New Yorkers to walk home. Even so, in the
> Northeast the source of the blackout was tracked. Btw, what the frell was
> Luthor waiting for at the docks? He had his precious crystals, why was he
> just waiting around instead of getting his plan into motion?
>
> I've said it a thousand times before and say again:
>
> In good science fiction, the rules of science can be broken, but the rules
> of fiction can not.
>
> Plot, characterization, themes, the basic requirements of fictional
> storytelling do not change.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago (who believes a man can fly, and that's when the movie
> at its best--just had trouble with the folks on the ground)
>
> P.S. What's with the super boy? Anyone gonna clue him in? Lex figures it out
> and leaves him alone. Lois waits forever to ask for his help getting out of
> the kitchen. Even so he does jack squat until she gets tired and sits down.
> In fact for most of the movie he sits and stares, like Ebert says, some kind
> of beta version of Damien.
>
> P.P.S. "It's not easy for me to live my life being who I am keeping
> secrets." In the trailer but not the movie.
I liked the original Superman movies when they came out, but I was
disappointed in how corny they were. In making this movie, the writers
didn't fit it together that well with others as a sequel. I ignored all
that, because clearly their intention was to make a nod backward to the
originals but starting over with something new. If they had just made a
brand-new Superman movie with this same plot -- and the other two movies
didn't exist -- how would the movie look then? That's how I looked at
it, because I wasn't committed to those previous movies enough to care
if they fit it together properly. I looked at "Superman Returns" more
like "Superman Begins." The originals are so classic, and made such a
strong impression, they can't just dismiss them altogether, so Singer
took a sideways approach: He acknowledged them, then went off on his
own, infusing a new subplot that didn't really exist in the old ones.
--
______________________________________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com
Ken Arromdee
trike <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think it's time for the obligatory Superman quote from Kill Bill
>(didn't like the film but I love this quote):
That's a quote from a villain. Quoting that is about as bad as quoting
Shakespeare about killing all the lawyers.
Despite his Kryptonian origin, Superman is basically a human being with powers.
So he isn't a non-human who creates Clark as his idea of a human--he's
a strong human who creates Clark as his idea of a weak human. So Clark is
not his comment on humanity, but his comment on human weakness.
trike
Which makes you wonder why they tried to do just that.
As soon as Clark showed up in the field, what occurred to me is that he
should have arranged to have postcards, letters and such sent from time
to time from places around the world to cover his tracks. Zipping
around the world and taking photos of himself as Clark in various
places would've taken him an afternoon, and given him a plausible
alibi.
Now, if I thought of that in an instant, Superman certainly should've
thought of it... and the writers should've added something like that in
the script. Showing up with a bunch of journals and a 500-page
manuscript documenting his journey would've helped, too.
Unless, of course, he wants to be caught, which is why he takes those
chances. As I say, that kind of story would've been far more
interesting.
Doug
tphile
>
> Does having sex with superman convert nice girls into nymphomaniacs?
>
Well, according to Larry Niven, after Superman, sex is never quite the
same for them. they get spoiled for life
;-)
George Peatty
Arromdee) wrote:
>Well, super-hypnotism was a real power of Superman in the comics, and Superman
>could travel through time. (I don't interpret the scene as literally
>turning the world around--it's just a visual effect. If you travel back in
>time, you'd see the world turning backwards.)
I thought I was the only one who saw that scene in the manner you describe.
I am glad to know I was wrong ..
Alric Knebel
> You know I'm pretty sure that Superman Returns is loosely based on the
> events of Superman and Superman 2. Is it really that much of a problem
> to just assume something happened differently?
>
> You know, maybe, just maybe they had sex once after Superman 2, just
> before he left?
>
> JLB
I'm with you on that. In fact, I don't care if it works at all with the
pervious films. I look at it as a movie that they wrote out of thin
air, and took liberties so they could infuse new life into the Superman
franchise. Suppose they'd never been a previous Superman movie, and
they simply started with this one. How would we view the film then?
That's how I look at it, as a completely independent film. I don't feel
strongly enough about the older films to care that this new one didn't
don't fit together with them. I see this as a new beginning, and just a
damned good movie, period.
Ken Arromdee
>
>First of all: The vast majority of the audience for this movie has
>never seen Superman I or II, or if they have, do not recall the details
>in the way the comics-obsessed denizens of this newsgroup do. They
>really don't care if all the references (or lack thereof) tie in
>exactly with the events of those movies.
The only way in which Superman I and II actually matter for the plot holes
is that Lois should have forgotten about sleeping with Superman. But without
movies 1 and 2, that's *still* a problem, just a problem in a different way
without amnesia.
If we completely ignore the earlier movies, then we must believe that
1) Lois slept with Superman and Richard so close together in time that it's
plausible that Superman's child could be Richard's, and
2) Lois slept with Superman even though they weren't close enough for
Superman to reveal his secret or explain that he was going to put their
relationship on a five year hiatus.
Fallen
Except that doesn't make any sense. If Superman travelled back in time
and not the Earth then he'd just run into his past self.
Fallen.
David B
Apparently there was a scene cut from the film where we learn that Martha Kent was
sending postcards from Clark to his friends while he was away.
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> There you go. There are numerous callbacks to the first two movies.
> That's exactly why people think it's related to the first two movies. We
> were pretty much told it without the movie actually spelling it out. If
> the intent was "it's a lot like the first two movies only without the
> amnesia," that's bad writing.
They may as well just have done a full reboot if that was the case.
[snip]
--
You can't stop the signal
Ian Galbraith
> In article <VPOdncR_3LXN8DrZ...@comcast.com>,
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> But wait, it's worse.
>> Was Lois never going to tell Superman he was a dad if he hadn't been
>> comatose? Now that he knows, is it possible he might reveal he's Clark Kent,
>> since they have a kid together? He can trust her to raise his kid but not
>> keep his secret identity? I thought SMALLVILLE made Clark act like a total
>> jerk--especially relative to Lex Luthor--with Lana Lang, but it's got
>> nothing on SUPERMAN RETURNS having Superman act like a jerk with Lois Lane.
> Okay, here goes. The way I took it (albeit biased, perhaps, by the
> Prequel comics), Lois actually thought that Jason was her son *by
> Richard White.* She wasn't mad that Superman got her pregnant and
> bailed, but that Superman, whom she thought loved her, left. THEN she
> hitched up with Richard, and apparently "did it" soon enough afterward
> that she thought the child was *his.* After all, would YOU expect an
> asthmatic child with all those meds to be half-Kryptonian?
That timeline just doesn't work IMHO. It would all have to happen within
a couple of weeks of Superman leaving. She didn't know he had left so she
would be wondering what had happened, she wouldn't necessarily be annoyed
and go to Richard on the rebound.
> She didn't tell Superman until he was comatose because (a) she was still
> trying to deny her feelings for him, (b) she still wanted to be mad at
> him for leaving, (c) everybody was more than a little busy between the
> time she found out and the time Superman collapsed, and (d) she may not
> have wanted Richard to find out. I don't know about you, but I think
> she had ***plenty*** of reason not to confess to him before then.
> (I also think it's somewhat sad to hear that folks want to think of
> Superman as perfect, incapable of being a jerk, while others claim
> Marvel has more believable characters.)
I for one criticize the movie for it because, like Smallville, they have
him act like a jerk but we're not meant to regard it as jerk behaviour.
V S Rawat
I mean, he might have concluded the above on the basic of the pleasure
he got when he fantasised about superman. :-)
Is Larry Niven gay?
--
Rawat
trike
David B wrote:
> trike wrote:
>
> >
> > As soon as Clark showed up in the field, what occurred to me is that he
> > should have arranged to have postcards, letters and such sent from time
> > to time from places around the world to cover his tracks. Zipping
> > around the world and taking photos of himself as Clark in various
> > places would've taken him an afternoon, and given him a plausible
> > alibi.
>
> Apparently there was a scene cut from the film where we learn that Martha Kent was
> sending postcards from Clark to his friends while he was away.
If true, that's both a stupid and insulting editorial choice. Stupid,
because it makes the Superman/Clark thing more believable to have it
in, and insulting because they assumed we wouldn't think of stuff like
that.
Id lose any one of the action scenes in favor of that. Did we really
need to see Young Clark jumping through corn fields or hovering in a
barn? No. Truncate that redundant junk and give us some smarter stuff
that fleshes out the story and the characters.
I wondered why they got Eva Marie Saint for that role. She had almost
nothing to do, so any actress of the right age would've been fine.
Although she looks great, why they went with an 82 year old for that
part is beyond me. If they hope to continue the franchise, that's not
a great bet. Martha was too old, just as Lois was too young.
Doug
George Peatty
>Except that doesn't make any sense. If Superman travelled back in time
>and not the Earth then he'd just run into his past self.
Time travel *never* makes any sense ..
Brandon Fisher
"Fallen" <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bu%pg.71945$qD.5...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> I don't want to watch films about 'Ordinary man gets amazing powers and
> acts like your average nightclub denizen'.
Just when I thought that the comments around a superhero movie couldn't get
anymore ridiculous...
Brandon Fisher
"Ken Arromdee" <arro...@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:e8a2pg$r1n$3...@blue.rahul.net...
> In article <AWRpg.26691$LT2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Brandon Fisher <bfi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>There is no way that the Superman II sex was the point of conception no
>>matter what. First, as has been pointed out, if Superman II is within
>>continuity of Returns, she doesn't remember (honestly, that's the dumbest
>>device in any Superman movie - dumber than the
>>spinning-the-world-backwards
>>thing).
>
> Well, super-hypnotism was a real power of Superman in the comics, and
> Superman
> could travel through time.
Oh, there's a zillion things that have happened in the comics over the
years. But, you'll find what worked in the 60s doesn't work today.
"Super-hypnotism" via "super-lips" is dumb no matter what form of media it's
in.
Brandon Fisher
"George Peatty" <peattyg...@copper.net> wrote in message
news:553ha252hao8fepvq...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:58:05 GMT, "Brandon Fisher" <bfi...@cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The cell phone didn't take a picture. That wasn't what that scene was
>>about. The scene was about his momentary thought of just telling her
>>before
>>pulling back.
>
> After reading all the threads here on Superman Returns, there is a *lot*
> of
> "That wasn't what that scene was about" here. I am surprised at how many
> people here who saw the movie, then come here and prove they didn't
> understand what they saw ..
The impression I get is that some people go there in anticipation of running
home to usenet and listing every flaw they could find. When you're actively
trying to find flaws, there's a good shot you're missing what is actually
going on right in front of you.
Eminence
While I have been a big critic of that scene, I've always understood
what it was supposed to represent. I just feel that it was a poor
visual choice.
Perhaps Fallen's analysis is correct. Then Superman-A can save Lois,
and Superman-B can still stop the second missile.
Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
Shaun
Duggy wrote:
> Derek Janssen wrote:
> > ...Uh, didn't Reeve-Clark arrange for Lois to lose her memory of the
> > entire events of S2, near the last scene of the original?
>
> Exactly.
>
Right, but it's one of the many dumb things to come out of that movie,
even if Donner/Lester had no way of knowing someone would come along
nearly 30 years later and make a hackneyed "sequel" to Supes 1 & 2.
Even without all the problems having the SuperBrat subplot creates, the
forgetting it all via a kiss is just dumb, every bit as dumb as the
cellophane "S" or making time go back by changing Earth's spin. The
problem is, Singer really can't have both ways. Either this is a sequel
to the events in 1 & 2 or it's not. Selectively choosing what to
include and what not (the "I won't let you down again, Mr. President"
speech was also forgotten -- obviously) makes a mess of a film that
already had a number of other problems.
Shaun
Shaun
trike wrote:
> > A bigger SoD would buying Lois Lane actress Kate Bosworth (who was only
> > 22 during filming) playing a character old enough to have a 5-year old
> > son, and intelligent and experienced enough to win a Pulitzer Prize,
> > yet stupid enough to walk right onto the villain's boat and get caught.
> > Do people think Kate looked mature enough for the Lois Lane character
> > (who I'm guessing was supposed to be around 32, or 10 years older than
> > Kate was)? Just curious.
>
And be stupid enough to take the kid along on a potentially dangerous
assignment no less... Maybe she thought it would be a simple Q&A with
the owner of the home, but considering the reach of the blackout and
the mysterious circumstances, not to mention Lois' knack for finding
trouble, how wise was this?
What's more, how does no one piece together that Luthor's behind it
all? He's a free man (I won't go into how dumb freeing him based on
Supes' lack of testimony is), and now he's inherited the fortune of
some dead old lady he married. How did this not make any news? Luthor
was an infamous criminal. Anna Nicole Smith sure made headlines when
she married a rich old coot, how did Luthor not? And how did Lois not
know who owned the house after all that? Then there's dopey Supes
knowing that Luthor's on the loose, and he doesn't go around keeping
tabs on him? he's clearly more concerned stalking his old girlfriend
than worrying about his #1 enemy. After a mysterious blackout nearly
killed lots of people.
But yeah, getting back to your question, Bosworth was much too young to
be believable, and not a terribly good actress either. I sure missed
Margot Kidder's Lois and the chemistry she had with Reeve. That's what
made two sub-par movies work, on some levels at least.
> I said the same thing as we were leaving the theatre, after my wife
> wondered how she got a 6-year-old in five years. Something's dodgy
> with the space-time continuum.
He's gotta be less than five, actually. Given that Supes is gone for
five, knows nothing about Lois being pregnant, and Lois carrying the
baby for approx. nine months. The kid can't be any older than four,
but he sure seemed/acted older. And what did Supes do, leave Earth
almost immediately after the events in S2? He'd have pretty much had
to, not knowing Lois was with child. So much for his vow to the Prez.
And was it just me, or did this kid look a lot like Macauly Culkin?
Shaun
Invid Fan
<VSR...@Invalid.none> wrote:
He finds the idea of being killed by sperm shooting through his body at
the speed of sound pleasurable?
> Is Larry Niven gay?
Not that I know of.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Shaun
Gustav...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> The movie did deal with it. Richard asked about the "I spend the night
> with Superman" headline, and she paused and said that nothing had
> happened. She was pretty clearly lying (or her acting was weak, and it
> just looked like she was lying. It works in this case).
>
Yeah, but that's even more screwy... Selectively choose the parts that
work for you in making this sort-of-sequel, leave out other parts, and
then taks some parts but completely change their meaning? Why not just
start from scratch and reboot the damned franchise like Batman Begins
(a far superior movie) did? And no, unless you are Martian Manhunter
you don't know that she was lying about that. At the very least, Singer
should've gone to the trouble to tie up all these crazy loose ends.
Shaun
Peter Bruells
> Right, but it's one of the many dumb things to come out of that movie,
> even if Donner/Lester had no way of knowing someone would come along
> nearly 30 years later and make a hackneyed "sequel" to Supes 1 & 2.
> Even without all the problems having the SuperBrat subplot creates, the
> forgetting it all via a kiss is just dumb,
Yes.
> every bit as dumb as the cellophane "S"
Yes.
> or making time go back by changing Earth's spin.
He didn't. He just circled the Earth so fast that he went back in
time, as demonstrated by the Earth turning backwardsw.
Shaun
Brandon Fisher wrote:
>
> interview - because the Lois Lane in Superman 1/2 was incredibly shallow.
> They developed more of a relationship between the two in Superman Returns
> with one look than ever existed in the first two movies.
>
What movie were you watching? ;-) I'm kidding, but seriously... I
didn't get any sense of a "relationship" between these two. Zero
chemistry IMO. Not Routh's fault really, but Supes seemed very cold,
impersonal and, um, *alien* in this movie. Not the warmth and humanity
I would normally associate with Superman, either in the comics or as
plyed by Chris Reeve. I think that was more a scripting/directorial
choice to play up the Christ-like/messiah angle than Routh. And
Bosworth was just not belieavable as Lois. I found Richard to the be
the best, most fully realized character in the whole movie.
Shaun
Shaun
Pat O'Neill wrote:
> I feel a need to reply to this entire thread--and the several others
> much like it--with a well-known three-word phrase:
>
> Get a life.
>
> First of all: The vast majority of the audience for this movie has
> never seen Superman I or II, or if they have, do not recall the details
> in the way the comics-obsessed denizens of this newsgroup do. They
> really don't care if all the references (or lack thereof) tie in
> exactly with the events of those movies.
>
This, from someone posting on such a newsgroup(s). I'm not knocking
you, just saying that this is the sort of thing that goes on in these
places, and you are adding your voice to it. Fan arguing over a genre
film? No... No previous history of that ever happening. :-) To say
no one outside of some comic fanboys don't nitpick these things is not
true. My wife's not one, and she had gripes aplenty after watching it.
> Third: If all the questions raised in this thread (and the others)
> occurred to you as you watched the movie, then the movie failed because
> it did not hold your attention well enough to keep you from wondering
> about such esoterica. If they didn't occur to you until afterward, then
> the movie did its primary job--it entertained you by telling a
> compelling story.
For me, many of the things griped about here *did* occur to me while
watching the movie yesterday. So, it failed. In my eyes at least. Too
bad, because some moments worked really well and there was some great
potential in this movie. It just needed a different guy with a
different vision at the helm.
Shaun
EGTea
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VPOdncR_3LXN8DrZ...@comcast.com...
> "The food here is awful."
> "Yes, but what great portions--and presentation."
>
> So many problems with the writing, but lets begin with the biggest:
>
> What does Lois remember?
>
> She gets knocked up by Superman (does she even know his given name,
Kal-El?)
> and he leaves for five years without saying goodbye and she's ticked off
> like every woman throughout history who has been abruptly abandoned by the
> father of their unborn baby.
>
> The problem is LOIS DOESN'T REMEMBER HAVING SEX WITH SUPERMAN--or does
she?
> Would have been nice if the movie had a flashback of HER memory of the
> events of SUPERMAN II. For a movie that supposed to pick up from SUPERMAN
II
> would have been nice for SUPERMAN RETURNS to deal with the core of the
> movie: Clark and Lois.
>
> But wait, it's worse.
>
> Was Lois never going to tell Superman he was a dad if he hadn't been
> comatose? Now that he knows, is it possible he might reveal he's Clark
Kent,
> since they have a kid together? He can trust her to raise his kid but not
> keep his secret identity? I thought SMALLVILLE made Clark act like a total
> jerk--especially relative to Lex Luthor--with Lana Lang, but it's got
> nothing on SUPERMAN RETURNS having Superman act like a jerk with Lois
Lane.
>
> women who aren't ruthlessly cold-bloodedly vicious and heartless as he,
nor
> share his Machievellian ambitious vision. At least his henchMEN weren't as
> bumbling as Otis, and at least shared the lump of coal Luthor had for a
> heart. Also, for all his ranting about having advanced alien technology,
> maybe he would have thought about growing some BEFORE taking on the
leading
> superpower in the world--or anyone with nuclear weapons. Sure, he had
> kryptonite, but that won't do jack against nerve gas, nukes or even plain
> conventional bombs (to say nothing of the more exotic "daisy cutters").
Bank
> robbers had more fire power than the "greatest criminal mind in the
world!".
> Maybe that explains why after launching not one but TWO nuclear weapons on
> US soil and collaborating with an alien takeover of the US of A, and the
> rest of the world, Lex is freed merely because ONE of the many witnesses
> against him is absent. Clearly September 10th thinking back then.
>
> Speaking of thinking, what is Perry thinking in having the DAILY PLANET
> "only" cover Superman--like apparently "every other newspaper" was doing?
> Wouldn't he at least want a FRESH angle that wasn't being mirrored by
> everyone else, by going after the blackout story? And what major paper in
a
> major metropolitan center does NOT have COLOR photos? Sad to see BLACK AND
> WHITE photos from the color cell phone pictures taken.
I used to be a mild-mannered reporter, so let me tell you about the news
business...
You go after the big story, period. The story people care about, the one
they'll be looking for tomorrow morning when they're standing in front of a
row of newsracks with their quarters in their hands. You go after that story
as if you had an exclusive on it, even if you know that every other news
service in the world is doing what you're doing. If everybody else is
focusing on Superman and ignoring the blackout, it would be business suicide
for you to do otherwise... unless you suspected that the blackout had the
potential of being a bigger story.
Most likely you'll do both. Very few events are important enough to
occupy the *entire* front page. Lead with Superman, playing the kid's
cellphone photo in the center. Put the blackout story "below the fold."
bar...@shentel.net
It was only with Man of Steel that Superman's parents became older but
not quite elderly(I'd say a few years shy of sixty.) and only around
Birthright that they became young. Originally they were a childless
couple that had long had to accept they would never have children.
That was part of the original movies and so part of Superman Returns
"vague history" If Singer had based it off the current comics, or
Lois&Clark or Smallville they would have been younger.
And Clark learning of his powers is usually meant as something to flesh
out his character.
JLB
bar...@shentel.net
identity after having sex with her is a bad thing, I say this, a
thought that just occured to me today. If she had no interest before
and still wanted to sleep with him he had no reason to tell. If he
told her after he would have made her feel like a prostitute.
She'd wonder if the identity thing was some sort of payoff for the sex.
Had allt he times he saved her and been friendly with her been payment
for the glowing stories?
JLB
mwo...@umich.edu
trike wrote:
>
> If Superman reversed time so that the bombs never went off, why was
> Luthor in prison? If he was there simply because Superman said so,
> then I can see how he got out as Superman Returns has it. Thing is,
> though, his "two nukes" plan is still a good one -- it worked, after
> all. So why didn't he just do it again?
Well, I'm hoping they have a little bit better security on transporting
missles than they used to...
(oh, look, an unconscious busty babe....and now, a wideload
truck....what kind of crazy day are we having?!?!?)
Of course, considering the security on the Fortress of Solitude...
> Of course, in Superman: The Movie, Superman didn't reverse time to stop
> Lex, but just to save Lois. But the fact that there's no mention of
> the loss of California in Superman II strongly implies that the bombs
> did not, in fact, go off. (Of course, I've only seen Superman II once,
> and that was some 25+ years ago, so I may be misremembering.)
Chris C.
(I think he still did all the saving of Cali, he just got to Lois
first...)
mwo...@umich.edu
> >> I do agree - some flashback sequence catching us up with what Singer is
> >> actually using as his "prequel" would have been welcome. I'm so happy
> >> that he did carry so much from the first film over. But, it forces these
> >> continuity questions that otherwise would never happen.
> >
> > Then skip SUPERMAN II, Superman had sex with Lois but NEVER revealed his
> > real identity? In what universe is that any where light-years from being
> > infinitely worse than the events of SII?
> >
>
> ??? In what universe is there an issue with that at all? I can't even
> really comprehend what the issue would be with Superman having sex with Lois
> and not revealing he's Clark. Lois barely tolerates Clark in the movies.
> Superman IS his real identity in the movies. Clark Kent is the disguise.
> Lois loves Superman... Clark is a mildly annoying acquaintance. That's
> fine, too, since Clark is a total act! Did you see her reaction to Clark
> when he brought up his concern that his being put on the blackout story
> might harm their "relationship"? She was shocked Clark thought they had
> one.
>
> It would take quite alot to be worse than the events of Superman II - a
> world where Superman has the power to remove short term memory by kissing
> people and has no problem with giving up his power to help billions of
> people just so he could bang Margot Kidder.
Now, if it had been Teri Hatcher...! ;-)
Chris C.
Duggy
> Right, but it's one of the many dumb things to come out of that movie,
> even if Donner/Lester had no way of knowing someone would come along
> nearly 30 years later and make a hackneyed "sequel" to Supes 1 & 2.
> Even without all the problems having the SuperBrat subplot creates, the
> forgetting it all via a kiss is just dumb,
Originally, Superman - The Movie was much longer and the time-travel in
#1 was what erased her memory.
===
= DUG.
===
Ken from Chicago
> In article <1151956374.8...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> <bar...@shentel.net> wrote:
>>To all the people who say Clark/Superman not telling Lois his secret
>>identity after having sex with her is a bad thing, I say this, a
>>thought that just occured to me today. If she had no interest before
>>and still wanted to sleep with him he had no reason to tell. If he
>>told her after he would have made her feel like a prostitute.
>
> intimate
> enough to have sex also implies being intimate enough to tell her. One
> doesn't
> cause the other, they are both caused by something else.
> --
> Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>
> "You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk
> on water." --Samantha Carter, Stargate SG-1
Thank you.
The word is "trust".
Imagine the flip side WHEN Lois finds out Superman is Clark--and he's LIED
to her all this time.
Worse if he slept with her, worse if he wiped her memory about it and never
told her.
-- Ken from Chicago
bar...@shentel.net
And you seem to be missing the point that outside of reporter instinct,
"oh, what a story this is!" Lois probabaly wouldn't be interested in
knowing. It's only goofy silver age stuff that has Lois looking for
Superman's secret identity. In the serious stuff, I think she's kind
of like Lex Luthor. She probably doesn't believe he has a secret
identity.
You're not breaking a trust if the person doesn't care what you have to
say.
And in case you've missed it, there's only one person who shares
Clark's secret and that's his mother. It's not like he's telling tons
of people besides Lois.
JLB
trike
I'd like to see someone actually try to figure out who Superman is.
Even if they don't *know* he has a secret identity -- heck, even if
they don't *suspect* he has one -- I can imagine in a world where
someone like Superman exists there would be millions of people who
would track his every movement, every sighting listed on numerous
websites... eventually a pattern would start emerging.
Not just amateurs, but government spooks would be in on this as well.
I've always thought it was odd that the government doesn't take a
bigger interest in Superman. Why aren't they spending millions of
dollars and tasking thousands of agents with discovering who he is?
Why aren't there satellites tasked with tracking his every move?
If they make another movie, that's the kind of story they should focus
on. Borrow some stuff from the comics, like Busiek's Superman: Secret
Identity or Straczynski's reboot of the Squadron Supreme. Get Uncle
Sam involved. Big time.
Doug
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> The impression I get is that some people go there in anticipation of running
> home to usenet and listing every flaw they could find. When you're actively
> trying to find flaws, there's a good shot you're missing what is actually
> going on right in front of you.
Its a suspension of disbelief issue, if you can't suspend disbelief (for
whatever reason) then the flaws stand out. If you can you tend to just
accept them.
Harkness
Pat O'Neill wrote:
> I feel a need to reply to this entire thread--and the several others
> much like it--with a well-known three-word phrase:
>
> Get a life.
>
> First of all: The vast majority of the audience for this movie has
> never seen Superman I or II, or if they have, do not recall the details
> in the way the comics-obsessed denizens of this newsgroup do. They
> really don't care if all the references (or lack thereof) tie in
> exactly with the events of those movies.
>
again. (also true of three and four. I think I've seen one a couple of
times.
> Second: The important question is--does the movie stand on its own? Do
> the references to prior events...as they are described in THIS
> movie...make sense? If they do, then there's no problem. If they don't,
> then there is. My recollection (I didn't record every word of dialog,
> after all) is that, for the most part, they do make sense. As an
> example, I recall no precise reference to Jason White's age--yes, he
> appears to be somewhere between 4-1/2 and 6, and 6 would be too old to
> be Superman's son as events are described in the film, but without a
> specific on-screen reference to his age, there's no problem.
>
Huge, immediate problems with the age of the actors and the time stated
in the film. five years. So the kid must be less than five, and the
actor looks six or seven-- you've never watched small children grow up,
have you? There's a BIG difference between four and a half and six, and
Jason White doesn't look or behave like a four year old.
So I'm thinking "Lois Lane has to be at least 28 for this character to
work" and Kate Bosworth was convincing as a 15 year old when she was
20.
> Third: If all the questions raised in this thread (and the others)
> occurred to you as you watched the movie, then the movie failed because
> it did not hold your attention well enough to keep you from wondering
> about such esoterica. If they didn't occur to you until afterward, then
> the movie did its primary job--it entertained you by telling a
> compelling story.
If I'm sitting there puzzling over the ages of the actors vis-a-vis the
characters, then they've failed at the casting level.
John Harkness